ORDER
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed from the order dated 17th of October, 2000, whereby the trial Court dismissed LA. No. 30, filed by the revision petitioner for permission to let out the premises in the name of the firm of which dissolution has taken place.
2. The trial Court observed:
Though defendant No. 16, is represented by a lawyer, he has not filed any memo stating that he has vacated the petition premises and has received the amount due to him or has paid the amount due by him to the 1st defendant. Plaintiffs are disputing the fact that, defendant No. 16, has vacated the petition schedule premises at one breath and also alleged that, defendant No. 16, has been evicted illegally by 1st defendant.
The truthfulness or otherwise of the assertions of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 6 will come to light only after recording of evidence on behalf of both the parties. The 1st defendant-firm is a dissolved firm, according to plaintiffs. At this stage, the premises cannot be leased in the name of 1st defendant – firm. It also opined that, if the property is leased out without consent of the plaintiffs, then valuable rights may be affected and it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. It further opined that, order before the High Court was passed on 10-12-1998, with the consent of both the parties and so, if both the parties were to give their consent, the Court could have considered granting permission to lease the schedule property in the best interest, but, plaintiffs are not agreeing for leasing the schedule premises. Taking these circumstances, the Court below opined that, it cannot exercise inherent jurisdiction to alter the rights of the parties without trial.
3. Taking the just above views, the trial Court rejected the application.
Feeling aggrieved from that order of the trial Court, the revision-petitioner has come up before this Court.
4. I put a question to learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner under which clause of Section 115, CPC he brings out and makes out a case, learned counsel referred Section 115 Clause (b). That Clause (b) provides for entertaining revision if, the Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction.
Merely because, Court has rejected and refused to grant permission it cannot be said to be a case of failure to exercise jurisdiction. When jurisdiction can be said to have been refused to be exercised by the Court, and the expression the failure to exercise jurisdiction means that, Court has refused to consider the application on merits on some technical ground, but in a case where, the Court has considered the application on its merits, looking to the facts and circumstances mentioned, the Court cannot be said to have failed to exercise jurisdiction, merely because it has not granted the permission. Court has come to a conclusion, either to grant the application or to refuse the application on its merits and if it is done one way or other it cannot be said to be a case of failure or refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. So, even if for a moment without expressing any opinion it be taken that, there was some error or some error was committed by the Court below, though, I do not record any finding to that effect, every error cannot be said to amount to jurisdiction error, and as such, in the present case I do not find that, any case has been made out within the purview of Section 115, for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.
Revision petition as such, is hereby dismissed. No cost.