Judgment 1. This application by the State of Bihar under Sec.115 of he Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is directed against the order dated 7th April, 1975, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, directing the State of Bihar, namely, the Receiver to make payment of Rs. 16,330.38 paise to Bhagwati Singh, the opposite party, a Government Contractor and to report its compliance within fifteen days of the date of order. 2. In order to appreciate the point involved in this application, it will be necessary to state briefly the facts obtained from the application filed by the petitioner. The State of Bihar, namely, the petitioner instituted a Title Suit bearing No. 16 of 1961 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, regarding mining properties of late Raja of Ramgarh. An application was also filed in the said suit by the petitioner for the appointment of a Receiver under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code, to manage the suit properties as detailed in the said petition. On 6th of October, 1969, the then learned Subordinate Judge, ordered for the appointment of a Receiver and by his order dated the 7th of October, 1969 Sri P.K. Mishra, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, was appointed as an ad interim Receiver who took over charge of the properties on 10th October, 1969. By order dated 14th March, 1970, the State of Bihar was appointed the Receiver with all the powers as detailed in the writ of appointment. The different areas of Kedla Jharkhand Colliery were put in the charge of the Receiver. For the purpose of efficient functioning of different contracts and despatch of coal from the different collieries the road connecting the different areas had to be repaired and maintained by the Receiver. The then nominee of the State of Bihar who was the Receiver on behalf of, the State got a tender notice issued through the Superintendent of collieries under reference dated 24th of May, 1972, inviting sealed tenders for supplying 40 trucks first class morrum for road repairs and maintenance work. The specific condition in the tender notice was that the morrum was to be dumped along the road 100 Ft. apart and the rate was to be quoted for 100 cft. The tender notice is marked as Annexure 1 to the application filed in this Court. The specific condition in the tender notice was that the morrum was to be dumped along the road 100 Ft. apart and the rate was to be quoted for 100 cft. The tender notice is marked as Annexure 1 to the application filed in this Court. Bhagwati Singh, the sole opposite party, submitted his tender for the supply of stone boulders and morrum. Under letter dated 29th July, 1972, Shri B. Roy, Superintendent, under the Receiver gave a work order to the opposite party to supply stone boulders and morrum of such quantity as in ducted at road side and the ad hoc rates were fixed till the tenders were finalised. The supply order given to the opposite party is marked as Annexure `2 to the application. Thereafter, the tender of opposite party was accepted, being the lowest rate offered. The work order dated the 8th August, 1972, is marked as Annexure `3 to the application. The opposite party began to supply morrum and boulders from time to time after receipt of the work order. The materials supplied by him were duly measured by the Surveyor and the measurements were noted in the Measurement Book on 15th October, 1972 and 18th December, 1972. The measurement was done in presence of the representative of opposite party and the Measurement Book was duly signed by the Surveyor, the Superintendent of collieries and the representative of the opposite party. It was further stated in the application filed by the petitioner that the payments as per the Measurement Book, were made by the opposite party except some matters of dispute raised by another contractor, namely Mr. D.P. Jaiswal. The dispute was also decided by the superintendent of the Colliery and payments were made accordingly to the opposite party. On 3rd February, 1973, the opposite party filed a petition before the then learned Subordinate judge praying for directing the authorities concerned to make payment to him at an early date. The opposite partys total claim mentioned in the petition was of Rupees 18,226.00. On receipt of the said petition of opposite party, the court directed the Receiver to file rejoinder by 19th February, 1973. The court also directed the Receiver to submit his report against the allegations made by the opposite party in his petition. The opposite partys total claim mentioned in the petition was of Rupees 18,226.00. On receipt of the said petition of opposite party, the court directed the Receiver to file rejoinder by 19th February, 1973. The court also directed the Receiver to submit his report against the allegations made by the opposite party in his petition. On 19th February, 1973, the rejoinder and the report were filed, after obtaining the report of the Superintendent of collieries concerned. The Superintendent concerned had reported to the Receiver that there was no dues outstanding in the name of opposite party. However the Receiver prayed for directing the opposite party to appear before the agents for settlement of his dues. The opposite party prayed for sending all papers, i. e. the Chalans to the agent for verification and report. The court, by its order dated 19th February, 1973, directed the opposite party to appear before the Receiver for settlement of his dues. On 17th May, 1974, the opposite party again filed a petition stating therein that he had not received the payment and prayed the court to get the payment of Rs. 18,226/- made to him altogether with interest thereon. Thereupon, the court directed the Receiver on 18th of May, 1974 to report. The Receiver submitted his rejoinder on 17th June, 1974, in which it was asserted that there was no outstanding dues of the opposite party as the Superintendent had reported that the payment for supply, as claimed by the opposite party, had already been made to him on the basis of measurement, and the Receiver prayed for rejecting the petition of the opposite party. At that point of time, the matter was heard by Shri J.P. Singh, the then learned Subordinate Judge, who was pleased to pass an order dated 16th July, 1974. A true copy of the said order is marked as Annexure `4 to the application. It will be relevant to quote in extenso paragraph 13 of his order which reads thus:- "It has been contended on behalf of the contractor that as soon as he unloaded the morrum and stone boulders, they were without being measured on the road as the work was going on. In none of these chalans, there is any measurement of the materials supplied by this contractor. In none of these chalans, there is any measurement of the materials supplied by this contractor. It was the duty of the contractor to get the quantity of the materials mentioned on these chalans measured and when it was not so done, he should have made a protest. So, it is difficult to say that quantity of the materials was supplied by this contractor at the site. In absence of the evidence regarding the quantity of the materials supplied by this contractor, I cannot hold that materials worth Rupees 18.226/- were supplied by this contractor. So the matter has to be sent back to the Receiver. The Receiver will decide as to what was the quantity of the materials supplied by this contractor on these 165 chalans for which this petitioner will appear before him and then the Receiver will make payment to the petitioner and report." It is clear from the above that the, learned Subordinate judge had directed the Receiver to thoroughly verify before making the payment, as the learned Subordinate Judge has observed that, in the absence of evidence regarding the quantity of the materials Supplied by the contractor, it could not be held that the material worth Rs. 18,226/- were supplied by the contractor. In that view of the matter, the learned Subordinate judge sent back the matter to the Receiver and directed him to decide as to what was the quantity of materials supplied by the opposite party. Thereafter, the Receiver examined the matter again and found that the different chalans were defective and were not a genuine and, therefore, he found inability to act upon those chalans. A petition to that effect was filed in the court by the Receiver. Subsequently, it appears that the colliery mines were nationalised and were taken over under the provisions of Colliery Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973, Under this Act, the coal mines authorities were appointed and various relevant papers came in possession of the coal mines authorities regarding the collieries. Thereafter, on hearing the parties, the court directed the coal mines authority by its order dated 2nd of December, 1974, to produce the measurement book and a letter was sent to the said authority to produce the same by 11th of December, 1974. 3. Thereafter, on hearing the parties, the court directed the coal mines authority by its order dated 2nd of December, 1974, to produce the measurement book and a letter was sent to the said authority to produce the same by 11th of December, 1974. 3. The coal mines authority, after receipt of the courts direction, wrote letters to the Receiver for certain clarifications, but the court, however, by order dated 21st of December, 1974, directed the Receiver to pay the amount immediately without examining the correctness of the accounts and to report by 23rd December, 1974. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition on 23rd of December, 1974 before the court praying therein that direction for the payment within the specified time should be stayed, as the petitioner wanted to move the High Court in revision. On the application of the petitioner, time till 16th of January, 1975 was granted. However, against the said order, the petitioner did not move the High Court. Subsequently, the Receiver could get the measurement book from the coal mining authority and reports of the Superintendent Surveyor and Road Supervisor in respect of the supply of raw materials by the opposite party. The Receiver then filed a petition on 2nd January, 1975, before the court annexing the copies, of measurement book, report of the Superintendent, Surveyors and others. In the said petition, it was prayed for recalling the order dated 21st of December, 1974 passed by the court. The court was, however, pleased to recall the said order dated the 21st of December, 1974, but instead of giving opportunity to the Receiver to verify and to make payment after the receipt of the measurement book from the coal mining authority, the impugned order dated 7th of April, 1975, was passed. 4. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned Subordinate judge, on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, particularly in view of the order passed under Annexure 4 referred to above, should not have directed the Receiver to make payment of the said amount to the opposite party without making proper verification within a specified time. 5. The question arises as to whether it will be a jurisdictional point justifying interference by this Court under Sec.115 of the Code. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party in this Court. 5. The question arises as to whether it will be a jurisdictional point justifying interference by this Court under Sec.115 of the Code. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party in this Court. In D. L. F. Housing etc. Co. V/s. Sarup Singh ( AIR 1971 SC 2324 ) the provisions contained under Sec.115 of the Civil Procedure Code and its scope and the powers of the High Court under the same was considered. Sec.115 of the Code confers on High Court revisional jurisdiction in these terms:- "115. The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court Subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such Subordinate Court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, The High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit." It was observed by the Supreme Court in that case at that the position seemed to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction under Sec.115, it was not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors had relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. The words "illegally or with material irregularity" occurring in clause (c) of Sec.115 did not cover either errors of fact or of law. They did not refer to the decision arrived at, but merely to the manner in which it was reached. The errors contemplated by that clause related either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities had been complied with. Learned Government Advocate applying the above principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court with regard to the provisions contained under Sec.115 of the Code, submitted that the learned Subordinate judge in the instant case has committed a material irregularity in the impugned order ignoring the previous order as contained in Annexure `4. Learned Government Advocate applying the above principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court with regard to the provisions contained under Sec.115 of the Code, submitted that the learned Subordinate judge in the instant case has committed a material irregularity in the impugned order ignoring the previous order as contained in Annexure `4. The order passed by the then Subordinate judge under Annexure`4 contained a specific direction that the Receiver must verify before making the payment. If the records were not available, there could have been no verification and it was on account that the payment was delayed. Now since the record and other materials have been received by the Receiver on 2nd of January, 1975, as stated by the Receiver in the petition filed before the Court, the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have granted some reasonable time to verify and report but, instead, the impugned order was passed for compliance within fifteen days of the receipt of the order dated 7th of April, 1975. 6 In my opinion, on the facts of the instant case, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. At present, Mr. Patankar, Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, is the nominee of the petitioner. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the payment to the opposite party has been much delayed. In that view of the matter now I direct Mr. Patankar to make payment to the opposite party of his entire dues with regard to 165 Chalans, after verification within two months from to-day. 7. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Subordinate judge is quashed with the direction indicated above. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.