JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner No. 1 Nanag Ram happens to be the husband of the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Kamla Devi. Kamla Devi owns a house at 36-A, Ambedkar Colony, Ahead Durgapura in Jaipur City. The plaintiff opposite party non-petitioner who is the applicant in the contempt application Ashok Choudhary claims himself to be a tenant in respect of premises No. 36A, Ambedkar Colony as stated earlier. The said Ashok Choudhary filed Civil Suit bearing No. 198/95 on 24.6.1995 praying for a permanent injunction against Nanag Ram only contending that he is a tenant inter alia under him and that the landlord is trying to oust him from possession and that is why he sought a permanent injunction against said Nanag Ram. A temporary injunction was also prayed for in T.I. Application No. 194/95 where on 26.6.95 an order for maintenance of status quo was passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur City (East), Jaipur. It was alleged by the plaintiff-opposite party Ashok Choudhary who was the applicant in the contempt application that he has been forcibly dispossessed by the police force on 17.7.95 pursuant to a FIR lodged by Smt. Kamla Devi on 25.6.95 wherein she alleged that there was a forcible entry on the part of Ashok Choudhary in her premises No. 36-A, Ambedkar Colony resulting in criminal trespass and other offences. It would not he out of place in this context to keep on record that as far back as on 22.6.95 another FIR was lodged by Ashok Choudhary at the Police Station regarding theft of his sewing machines from this particular house No. 36A, Ambedkar Colony in respect of which he claimed a tenancy and contended inter alia that his articles including sewing machines were stolen away by one Akram son of Arif and others. In the application for contempt as a sequel to the dispossession by the police force at the behest of the land-lady Kamla Devi and her husband Nanag Ram, the learned Civil Judge initiated proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC and ultimately by an order dated November 2, 1996 came to a finding that Nanag Ram and his wife Smt. Kamla Devi have committed contempt of court for a conscious and wilful violation of the status quo order which the Civil Court directed them to maintain by passing an apposite order dated June 26, 1995. In that view of the matter an order regarding attachment of property to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- was directed against them and they were directed to restore back possession on the basis of application under Section 151, CPC being filed by the plaintiff on July 25, 1995 against Nanag Rain only. Being aggrieved by the order dated November 2, 1996 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur City (East), Jaipur the present petitioners have filed a specific appeal before the learned District Judge which I am given to understand has been numbered as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 507/96 and the next date of hearing has been fixed as 8.1.1997. In as much as the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has passed an order on the basis of the application under Section 151, CPC as filed by the plaintiff Ashok Choudhary directing restoration of possession in his favour, the present petitioners Nanag Ram and Kamla Devi have filed the present revisional application before this Court which has been numbered as S.B. Civil Revision No. 1663/96. It is prayed before me that the learned Civil Judge misdirected himself in appreciating the evidence and in coming to an inference that the applicant in the contempt application Ashok Choudhary has been dispossessed by the present petitioners from his erstwhile possession which he had on June 20, 1995, the day on which the order was passed regarding maintenance of status quo as to possession and since the dispossession took place at the behest of the present petitioners Nanag Ram and his wife Smi. Kamla Devi, there was an attachment of property worth R.I. 50,000/- against them and further the court below directed them to restore back possession in respect of the tenancy premises to Ashok Choudhary. It has been further urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the FIR as lodged by Smt Kamla Devi has been taken to be substantive evidence in the case and in conjunction with other evidence, the Civil Judge has misconstrued and mis- interpreted the entire case for tenancy as set out by Ashok Choudhary and the order is not only bad in law but also is unsustainable on facts. 2. Mr. 2. Mr. A.C. Upadhyaya, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party Ashok Choudhary contended before me that live witnesses were examined by the plaintiff-applicant Ashok Choudhary and four witnesses were examined by the defendant landlord and his wife who were non-petitioners in respect of the contempt application and the trial court has committed no error of law -in taking the FIR lodged by Smt. Kamla Devi as admissible to prove an admission of the said maker of the FIR i.e. Kamala Devi herself to the effect that the tenant Ashok Choudhary had taken possession forcibly and stolen her property, `which FIR was lodged by her on June 25, 1995 at about 8.30 p.m. It has to he remembered that the order of maintenance of status quo as to possession was passed by the Civil Judge on the day following i.e. June 26, 1995 and it is further submitted before me that the notices of the suit along with a copy of the injunction application were received by the defendant Nanag Ram on June 25, 1995 prior to the passing of the status quo order. 3. Mr. Mahendra Goyal, learned, Advocate for, the petitioner drew, my attention to the fact that the temporary injunction application which was filed by Ashok Choudhary in the civil suit was.finally dismissed on merits on December 18, 1995 where a finding' was made that there was no prima facie case in support of the plaintiff and it was found as matter of fact that the plaintiff had already been dispossessed. No appeal was preferred against this order to any appellate forum by the plaintiff. 4. Mr. Upadhyaya, learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted before me by citing the decision in Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others, AIR 1966 SC 153 , that this revisional court cannot correct errors of facts and cannot interfere in revision unless there was any jurisdictional error committed by the trial court. Citing another decision of the Supreme Court in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad and another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR 1973 SC 76 , Mr. Citing another decision of the Supreme Court in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad and another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR 1973 SC 76 , Mr. Upadhyaya further submitted before me that unless court below in exercise of its jurisdiction acted with material irregularity or committed any illegality, this Court should not revise the order as passed by the trial court so as to reappreciate the evidence and should not interfere at all unless the trial court went beyond its jurisdiction or exercised its jurisdiction without due authority. Another judgment of our Court in Ram Dayal v. Murari Lal and anr., 1989(1) RLR 923 was cited to the effect that the High Court should not substitute its own view even though a mistake of fact or law has been committed by the trial court because in the revisional jurisdiction the High Court cannot correct such mistakes either of fact or of law and scope for interference under Section 115, CPC is indeed very narrow. There is no quarrel with these broad propositions of law but then since the learned District is in seisin of the appeal filed against the substantive order wherein the present petitioners have been found guilty of contempt whereby they have been directed to subject themselves in respect of attachment of property worth Rs. 50,000/-, it would only be fit and proper for the present petitioners who are appellants before the learned District Judge to agitate the question of the propriety of the order directing restoration of possession in favour of Ashok Choudhary who claims himself to be it tenant in respect of the disputed premises, on the face of his application for temporary injunction having been rejected. The present petitioners can also agitate other question of fact wherein the appellate Judge, the learned District Judge, would be free to appreciate the facts independently of his own as the appellate court where he Would not only appreciate the questions of law but would also be free to make findings of his own on questions of fact as well. As the matter stands now I do not find any scope for interference under Section 115, CPC in a piece-meal fashion, with regard, the order which was passed pursuant to the application under Section 151, CPC praying for recovery of possession as filed by Ashok Choudhary. As the matter stands now I do not find any scope for interference under Section 115, CPC in a piece-meal fashion, with regard, the order which was passed pursuant to the application under Section 151, CPC praying for recovery of possession as filed by Ashok Choudhary. It would only be fit and proper that. this question of recovery of possession should also be decided upon by the learned District Judge independently of his own. I make it clear that the rejection of this application under Section 115, CPC would not be any bar to the agitation of this aspect ' of the matter regarding recovery of possession before the learned District Judge because the scope for interference in revision application is not only limited but is uncalled for. Moreover, the appeal against the substantive order is pending before the learned District Judge. In this view of the matter this application is disposed of without. any effective order of its own with a finding that there is no scope for interference. In the facts and circumstances of the case liberty is given to the present petitioners to agitate all the controversies before the learned District Judge. I think in the interests of justice, the learned District Judge should prepone the hearing which has been fixed on 8.1.1997 and should fix some other earlier date after hearing the submission of both the sides. The interim order so passed by the court would continue for two weeks more.Petition Disposed of as above. *******