S. N. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) -THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 28. 1. 99 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Civil Revision No. 139 of 1997 arising out of Misc. Case No. 4 of 1997. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed a Title Suit No. 243 of 1972 in the Court of 2nd Munsif at Alipore praying for aviation of the respondent from the suit premises at 58/f Hindusthan Park, P. S. Gariahat, 1st floor. That suit was decreed. The respondent preferred appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, 5th Court, Alipore and the Title Appeal No. 1051 of 1977 was disposed of on 14. 2. 78 affirming the Judgment of the trial Court. The operation of the Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court was, however, stayed till 30. 3. 78 as the appellant/judgment-debtor wanted to prefer second appeal. In the meantime, the decree-holder put the decree into execution long before the disposal of the first appeal and title execution No. 72 of 1977 was pending. As soon as the title appeal No. 1051 of 1977 was dismissed the execution case was set into motion again and the judgment-debtor/respondent prayed for 6 weeks time to bring the stay order from the High Court. The executing court by order No. 15 dated 6. 3. 78 passed in title execution case No. 72 of 1977 rejected the application for staying execution by observing:"no document has been filed to show that the judgment of the learned sub-Judge, 5th Court, who has disposed of the appeal has been stayed so the petition is rejected. " Another petition was filed on 7. 3. 78 praying for 6 weeks time to bring the stay order from the High Court and that was also rejected. The writ was issued on 7. 3. 78 fixing 28. 4. 78 for return and order. Writ was executed on 31. 3. 78 and delivery of possession was given in favour of decree-holder by the bailiff executing the writ. ( 3 ) THE second appeal was also summarily dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its order-dated 17. 11. 78 and the injunction petition filed therein was also dismissed. Writ was executed on 31. 3. 78 and delivery of possession was given in favour of decree-holder by the bailiff executing the writ. ( 3 ) THE second appeal was also summarily dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its order-dated 17. 11. 78 and the injunction petition filed therein was also dismissed. The judgment-debtor had not taken any further steps for 8 years and thereafter in 1986 filed a Title Suit before learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore and the said suit was numbered title suit No. 71 of 1986 for getting back the possession but the same was also dismissed in 1995. Against that order of dismissal title appeal No. 22 of 1996 was preferred before the learned Assistant District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore and the said appeal was also dismissed but the learned Court observed that the writ of delivery of possession was issued by mistake during the period when there was stay of operation of the order till 30. 3. 78. The learned Court also observed that "under section 151 CPC Court can rectify its own mistake and there is no limitation for invoking inherent powers. " The Court also observed that appellant's remedy was in filing an application under section 47 CPC in execution case but not filing a separate suit. Being inspired by such observation while disposing of title appeal No. 22 of 1996 by judgment dated 9. 5. 96 the respondent filed a Misc. Case No. 4 of 1997 under section 47 CPC. The Misc. case was also dismissed by learned munsif by order-dated 21. 3. 97. Against that order dated 21. 3. 97 the Civil Revision was preferred being Civil Revision No. 139 of 1997 and the same was disposed of by Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore by its order dated 28. 1. 99 whereby the learned Judge held the writ of delivery of possession was issued illegally in spite of stay order of the Appellate Court and so he passed the following order:"that the instant revisional application be and the same is allowed on contest but without costs. The impugned order of the learned munsif, 2nd Court at Alipore is hereby set aside. " ( 4 ) NO order for restitution of possession was, however, passed. The petitioner/decree-holder has came up with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the aforesaid order dated 28. The impugned order of the learned munsif, 2nd Court at Alipore is hereby set aside. " ( 4 ) NO order for restitution of possession was, however, passed. The petitioner/decree-holder has came up with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the aforesaid order dated 28. 1. 99 passed by the learned Additional District Judge; 4th Court, Alipore has been challenged. ( 5 ) THIS application has been challenged vehemently by the respondent primarily on the ground that against the revisional order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore under section 115a CPC an application under Article 227 does not lie and that remedy of the petitioner lies in appeal before Supreme Court after obtaining Special Leave. ( 6 ) SECTION 115a (3) lays down,"where any proceeding for revision is commenced before the district Court, the decision of the district Court on such proceeding shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. " ( 7 ) THE learned advocate has further argued that in the guise of an application under Article 227 the petitioner has virtually filed a revision against the order passed by learned District Judge in revisional jurisdiction. The embargo of section 115a (3), he argues, cannot be circumvented by taking recourse to Article 227 nor revision can be converted into a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Justice Monoj Kr. Mukherjee passed in criminal revision No. 848 of 1981 dated 16. 4. 84 (Gopal Chandra Halder and Anr. v. State of W. B. and Ors. and also the decision in Vishes Kumar v. Shanti Prasad reported in AIR 1980 SC 892 ). ( 8 ) IN Vishes Kumar's case the Apex Court held,"the High Court is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under section 115, over a revisional order made by the District Court under that section. The phrase "case arising out of an original suit" occurring in section 115 does not cover orders in revision. A mutually exclusive jurisdiction has been assigned to the High Court and the District Court within the terms of section 115. To recognise a revisional power in the High Court over a revisional order passed by the District Judge would plainly defeat the object of the legislative scheme. A mutually exclusive jurisdiction has been assigned to the High Court and the District Court within the terms of section 115. To recognise a revisional power in the High Court over a revisional order passed by the District Judge would plainly defeat the object of the legislative scheme. The intent behind the bifurcation of jurisdiction-to reduce the number of revision petitions filed in the High Court-would be frustrated. " ( 9 ) THE Apex Curt in the above decision has laid down the general proposition of law. But the said decisions have not taken away the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in exceptional cases where the order passed by the District Judge or Additional District Judge in revision is without jurisdiction and grossly illegal causing serious prejudice to the legal right of one of the parties therein. ( 10 ) IN Jodhey v. State reported in AIR 1952 Allahabad, 788, it has been observed:"there are no limits, fetters or restrictions placed on this power of superintendence in this clause and the purpose of this Article seems to be to make the High Court the custodian of all justice within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction and to arm it with a weapon that could be wielded for the purpose of seeing that justice is meted out fairly and properly by the bodies mentioned herein. " ( 11 ) IN D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee, AIR 1953 SC 58 ; Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215 , it has been held,"that the power of the superintendence over inferior Courts and tribunals conferred on the High Court is judicial as well as administrative. " ( 12 ) THIS jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act, except by a constitutional amendment. (1962), Vol. 1 SCR 505 at page 509, State of Gujarat v. Vakhat Singhi, AIR 1968 SC 1481 (1488); Union of India v. Bhanu Das (1977) Vol. 1 SCC 834; Chandra Sekhar v. Syaram 1979 Vol. 3 SCC 118; Jethabai v. Sundar Das (1988) 1 SCC 722 . (1962), Vol. 1 SCR 505 at page 509, State of Gujarat v. Vakhat Singhi, AIR 1968 SC 1481 (1488); Union of India v. Bhanu Das (1977) Vol. 1 SCC 834; Chandra Sekhar v. Syaram 1979 Vol. 3 SCC 118; Jethabai v. Sundar Das (1988) 1 SCC 722 . ( 13 ) IN Trimbak Gangadhar v. Ramchandra Ganesh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1222 , the Supreme Court observed,"it is well established that it is only when an order of tribunal is violative of the fundamental basic principles of justice and fair play or where a patent or flagrant error in procedure or law has crept in or where the order passed results in manifest injustice, that a Court can justifiably intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. " ( 14 ) FROM the facts stated above it is apparent on the face of the record that the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in passing the order impugned has committed grave error which not only has occasioned miscarriage of justice but has caused serious injury to the right of the petitioner who got delivery of possession more than 20 years ago by executing the decree for eviction. It is apparent that the 1st Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 1051 of 1977 stayed the operation of its own order till 31. 3. 78 to enable the respondent to bring the stay order from the High Court. The execution case was never stayed at any point of time. The stay order expired on 30. 8. 78 and delivery of possession thereafter by executing the writ cannot be held to be illegal or done by mistake. The respondent suffered a decree for eviction up to High Court. The respondent's second appeal in the High Court was summarily dismissed which means that he was destined to be evicted having no legal ground for offering resistance or taking any objection under section 47 CPC or any other provision. Therefore, no injury was caused to him as he lost the case at every stage up to High Court. He slumbered over the matter for 8 years since the date of delivery of possession. He filed a title suit for restitution of possession after 8 years. Therefore, no injury was caused to him as he lost the case at every stage up to High Court. He slumbered over the matter for 8 years since the date of delivery of possession. He filed a title suit for restitution of possession after 8 years. Having lost in the trial Court he preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed, but the learned appellate Court made some observations in the form of counsel, which he interpreted as order. The appellate Court went beyond his jurisdiction by observing that section 47 CPC is the remedy or an application under section 151 CPC may be filed to correct the mistake of the executing Court. Such observations were thoroughly unwarranted. The respondent has argued that an application under section 47 as the same will be governed under section 64 and the limitation is for 12 years from the date of the order of the Appellate Court. The limitation is in such a case is for three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and section 64 has no application. (See Rasomoy Mitra v. Lachmi Todi reported in AIR 1982 Cal 178 and in Hafez Uzir Ali v. Nasimannessa Bibi reported in AIR 1928 Cal 865) The Misc. Case was filed on 12. 6. 96 and the date of dispossession was 31. 3. 78. Such application filed 18 years after the date of dispossession is also hopelessly time barred even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that Article 64 of the Limitation Act will govern the application under section 47 CPC. The respondent wants to submit that his period will run from the date of the order of the learned appellate Court dated 9. 5. 96. Such submission can be made only to be rejected. It means, as if, that had such observation been not made by the learned 1st Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 22 of 1996, the period of limitation would not start running but keep waiting for such an observation/order in anticipation of the same being passed by the learned Appellate Court. The effect of passing an order for restitution has the effect of nullifying all the judgments passed by the Courts up to the High Court. The effect of passing an order for restitution has the effect of nullifying all the judgments passed by the Courts up to the High Court. ( 15 ) THUS, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the fundamental basic principles of natural justice and fair play and results in manifest injustice to the petitioner calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the order impugned herein is set aside. Later. Prayer for stay is considered and rejected. Let urgent Xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned counsels for both the parties on priority basis. Application allowed