A revisional authority cannot grant relief concerning an entirely different way not claimed in the original suit.

The appellants, original plaintiffs, instituted proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, claiming an ancestral access way along the southern side of Revenue Survey No. 265/1 to reach their agricultural land.

The Mamlatdar rejected the claim, finding that the alleged southern way had been discontinued approximately ten years before the suit was filed.

Before the High Court, the appellants contended that although the southern way had ceased to be used, they had subsequently used an eastern-side route, which was allegedly blocked about one month before institution of the suit. However, that fact was not pleaded in the original plaint.

In revision, the Deputy Collector directed the respondents to permit use of a different way passing along the western boundary of Survey No. 265/1.

The Single Judge set aside that order, holding that the Deputy Collector had introduced a new access route that was not the subject matter of the original suit and had exceeded revisional jurisdiction.

1. Whether the Deputy Collector, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the proceedings arising from Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, could direct the respondents to permit use of an altogether different way that was not claimed in the original plaint.

2. Whether the Single Judge erred in setting aside the Deputy Collector’s direction on the ground that the claimed southern way had been discontinued and that the Deputy Collector had introduced a new case in revision.

The proceedings were governed by Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906, under which the Mamlatdar adjudicated the appellants’ claim concerning the alleged obstruction of an access way.

Revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining the legality and propriety of the subordinate authority’s order and does not permit the revisional authority to grant relief on an altogether new factual case or in respect of a route that was not the subject matter of the original proceedings.

A party is also expected to disclose material facts in its original pleading; a subsequent change in the factual case cannot ordinarily support relief beyond the scope of the original claim.

The Court held that the original plaint asserted only that the southern side of Survey No. 265/1 constituted an ancestral way and that no other access existed, while omitting the alleged use and later obstruction of the eastern-side route.

The Mamlatdar’s finding that the southern way had been discontinued for about ten years was not challenged in the appeal.

Despite this, the Deputy Collector directed the respondents to open a western-side route, which was an altogether different way and had not been claimed in the original suit.

Since that direction was based on a newly introduced case and exceeded the permissible scope of revision, the Single Judge correctly quashed it.

The appellants failed to demonstrate any infirmity in that reasoning.

The Court imposed no order as to costs.

The connected Civil Application for Stay was disposed of as having become infructuous.