M. Sharma, J.@mdashThis revision petition has been preferred praying for recalling of the judgment and order dated 7.9.93 passed in Criminal
Revision No. 224/87.
2. The matter was pending before this Court since 1987 and this Court by order dated 7.9.93 disposed of the matter under its revisional
jurisdiction, u/s 403 Code of Criminal Procedure option has been provided to the revisional court, Section 403 Code of Criminal Procedure reads
as follows:
403. Option of court to hear parties. - Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, no party has any right to be heard either personally or
by pleader before any court exercising its powers of revision but the Court may, if thinks fit, when exercising such powers, hear any party; either
personally or by pleader.
3. Recall of the judgment dated 7.9.03 on the ground of not giving opportunity to the counsel of the Petitioners as a matter of right is not
sustainable, as the revisional jurisdiction conferred on court, is discretionary, This Court after going through the papers decided the matter and the
order of the Executive Magistrate dated 27.1.86 has been restored by setting aside the judgment and order dated 4.4.87 passed by the Sessions
Judge in Criminal Motion No. 12(1)/86.
4. Further submission of the counsel for the present Petitioner is that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as abated for non - substitution of
the legal representatives of the revision Petitioner who died in 1991. This fact was not brought before the revisional court. The revision petition was
filed on 22.6.87 and notice of motion was issued on 23.6.87 and Rule was issued on 24.7.87. There was no order of this Court for stay of the
impugned order, When the matter came for hearing on 12.7.93 none appeared for the parties. On the ground of personal difficulty of the counsel
for opposite party (present Petitioner) hearing was adjourned for two weeks and when the matter came for hearing on 7.9.93 it was decided u/s
403 Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court.
5. Section 145(7) Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if during pendency of the proceeding any party to the proceeding dies the Magistrate
may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the proceeding.
6. The point to be considered in this case is whether the non substitution of the legal representatives in the revision petition vitiates the finding of the
revision court.
7. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court very wide to test the correctness, legality or even the propriety of the findings or order of the
subordinate court or for satisfying itself as to the regularity of the proceeding of the court below. Apparently revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court does not relate to ascertain the right, title and interest of the parties but it is invoked to test the jurisdiction material irregularity and illegality of
an order of the subordinate court. Therefore, unlike an appeal under the Code, revision court can decide the matter referred for revision without
substitution as the final relief has to be given by the court other than the revision court.
8. In that view of the mailer, the right title and interest of a party cannot be vitiated if the revision court found the decision of the court in form on
the point of jurisdiction, illegality or irregularity. The right, title of the parties u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure is always decided by a civil court
only, even if possession is delivered in favour of any of the parties.
9. The prayer of the Petitioner to recall the judgment is nothing but a prayer to review the same. Section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure provides
that no court when it signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical
error. Inherent powers of the court cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits. In Moti Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the
Apex Court held that Section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure in clear terms lays down that court cannot alter judgment after the same has been
signed except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, That being the position the High Court has no jurisdiction u/s 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure to alter the earlier judgment.
10. In that view of the matter the aggrieved party can approach the appropriate forum to agitate their right, title and interest. I find no substance in
this revision petition and accordingly it is rejected.