ORDER Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—A review petition has been filed from the Order dated 30th of November, 1999, delivered by Brother Hon'ble Sri Venkatesh Murthy, J., in Civil Revision No. 2669 of 1999, without notice being served on Respondents 1, 2, 4 to 8. 2. The revision has arisen from an order dated 5.8.1999, passed on I.A. No. 15, in original suit O.S. No. 71 of 1986, under Section 92. 3. This Court in Appeal Regular First Appeal No. 33 of 1992, observed that: When clause (ii) of the scheme clearly deletes the clause mentioned in the title deed without giving opportunity to the Appellant the order passed cannot be said to be a consent order, as reasons have not been given and on the allegations, it amounts to giving a finding without materials being placed or opportunity provided to the Appellant. In this regard, the order passed by the learned District Judge has to be set aside. After having set aside the judgment given in the suit, this Court remanded back the matter to the District Judge to give both the parties, opportunity to lead further evidence with respect to Clause (ii), and to dispose of the entire matter afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to frame proper scheme in the interest of institution. 4. After the appeal had been disposed of and the matter had reached the additional District Judge, an application under Section 151 was made by first Defendant in the suit. It was stated in the application that after the disposal of the appeal, the vacuum is created, as there is no management to administer the Trust and to look-after the properties and there being no direction by the Hon'ble Court to the dissolved management to hand over the charge to the Ex-officio President, the last Defendant. So, direction was sought for handing over the management to Defendant No. 1, as otherwise, the Trust could not be administered and difficulties would have arisen in the management of institution, the hostel etc. There were objections filed to the application of Defendant No. 1, and the objections to the application was opposed by Plaintiff No. 3, as well as by the Secretary appointed after the Court's orders, as mentioned in Paragraph-3 of the Appellate Court's order. 5. There were objections filed to the application of Defendant No. 1, and the objections to the application was opposed by Plaintiff No. 3, as well as by the Secretary appointed after the Court's orders, as mentioned in Paragraph-3 of the Appellate Court's order. 5. Those trustees, which were appointed by the District Judge, also were given notice and they had also opposed the application. The District Judge considered the matter and after having considered in detail observed in Paragraph-11 as under: From the narration of above facts it becomes very clear that the need has arisen for making certain arrangements for the management of Trust which involves the administration of various educational institutions and immovable properties, inter alia. Thereafter, the District Judge after taking into consideration the various case law, opined, that, he would be entitled to appoint Receiver as well as it can also constitute interim Management Committee to discharge the duties till the constitution of the Trust etc. and the appointing of interim Management Committee, which would serve better then, asking a single receiver to hold the management of trust. The District Judge passed the order and held neither, Defendant No. 3, nor Plaintiff can be placed in the charge of the Management and it appointed a Committee of persons, namely, Defendants 2 and 4, and Basave Gowda to be in-charge of the management and issued certain directions, as an interim arrangement and rejected the claim of the 1st Defendant to be given the charge of the institution, for giving the charge to the alleged old trustees including Defendant No. 1 himself. 6. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the Defendant No. 1, filed revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and obtained the order impugned, which is now being challenged by way of this review petition. 7. It is firstly, contended that, this revision has been disposed of and the order impugned had been passed without any notice to the present Respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 8, and it has further been contended that, there was no jurisdictional error in the order of the District Judge nor there is any indication in the order of the learned Judge of this Court indicating that any jurisdictional error was pointed out to the Court in the order of the learned District Judge, challenged under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It was submitted that, as no jurisdictional error has been pointed out, and there has been no jurisdictional error coming within the framework of Section 115, nor any jurisdictional error has been shown or placed or indicated with reference to the order of Trial Court, before this Court, as per the order of learned Judge, the order in question suffers from error apparent on the face of the record which error goes to the route of jurisdiction of this Court. 8. The above contentions which have been raised on behalf of the revision Petitioner by Sri M. Papanna have been hotly contested on behalf of Respondents. It has been contended by Sri Raghupathy, that this is an Review Application, at the most review should be allowed only to this extent that, order may be set aside and revision may be restored and it may be disposed of after hearing both the parties when both the parties are present, I think it proper to hear on the merits as well, because unless jurisdictional error is shown in the order of the District Judge, this Court could not interfere under Section 115, even if for a moment, the order passed by District Judge is shown to suffer from any error of law or of fact. Sri Raghupathy, submitted when the revision was taken up, his client had offered to provide funds to the institution to the extent the institution needed and if he is included in the Managing Committee and he very fairly submitted that the same had impressed the Court in passing the order. 9. The learned Counsel for the Respondents was called upon to show any jurisdictional error coming within the framework of Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge and not to reject it, Sri Raghupathy submitted the Court had only discretion either to allow the application I.A. 15 or to dismiss it and it could not frame the interim management scheme pending the decision of the suit, and therefore, order is illegal and without jurisdiction. 10. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. 10. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. Firstly, it is well settled that, no order should be passed ordinarily without any notice to the parties which may be going to be affected, but here for one reason or other, the Court had dispensed with the notice and passed the order. The jurisdiction of this Court is not unbridled or arbitrary. 11. In M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu and Others, AIR 1999 SC 2468 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Paragraph- 82, "Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled to exercise discretion wearing robes of judicial discretion and pass an order based solely on their personal predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion where-ever is required to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set principles of law". Thus this very basic principles have always to be kept in mind by us when exercising our judicial discretion any powers and as such judicial discretion under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) could be exercised in the present case only when a case under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is or had been made out. 12. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) reads as under: 115. 12. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) reads as under: 115. Revision.-(1) 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 is 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: Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where- (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. No doubt, it is mentioned in Section 115, the High Court may make such orders, as it thinks fit and judicial discretion has been given to the Court. This Court can make such orders, if it thinks fit, but before that, in a case, where this Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdiction and power under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), certain basic and preliminary conditions which are sine qua non, for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 as, will appear from the perusal of Section 115 have to established and have be shown to exist. The first condition to be established is that the order amounts to be a case decided. The second condition is that order impugned is not appealable directly and the third essential condition to be established is that the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error coming within either of the clauses of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), there has been a good series of cases on the subject explaining the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 as to necessary pre-requisite conditions. It has been laid down very clearly that, if no jurisdiction error has been established or shown in the order, then, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order simply on the ground, there is an error of fact or law (other than jurisdictional error) in the order vide the law laid under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in N.S. Venkatagiri vs. Hindu Religion E.B.H. AIR 1949 PC 156 ; Joychand vs. Smt. Kamalakshmi, AIR 1949 PC 239 ; Chamaria vs. Chamaria, AIR 1953 SC 26; Pandurang Dhoni Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR 1966 SC 153 ; Ratilal Balabhai Nazar Vs. Ranchhodbhai Shankarbhai Patel and Another, AIR 1966 SC 439 ; K. Balasubramania Chetty Vs. N.M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty, AIR 1975 SC 818 Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another, AIR 1983 SC 462 ; Manick Chandra Nandy Vs. Debdas Nandy and Others, AIR 1986 SC 446 and in Sri Kempaiah Vs. Smt. Chikkaboramma and Others, (1998) 7 AD SC 446. 13. Thus considering I find firstly, that the order of the learned Judge of this Court suffers from the error of law apparent on record when this Court without its being shown or established that order of Trial Court did suffer from error of jurisdiction under Section 115(1) (a) or 'b' or 'c' it interfered with Trial Court's Order. In all probability the attention of the Hon'ble Judge was not invited to the basic ingredients of Section 115, and it appears to have been suggested that this Court can pass an order, such as the one proposed by the Counsel if, deems fit, in the interest of justice, without pointing out any jurisdictional error in the order of trial Court challenged under Section 115 of the Code (CPC). In my opinion, therefore, order impugned i.e. order subject matter of Review suffers from error of law apparent on record affecting jurisdiction of this Court. In my opinion, therefore, order impugned i.e. order subject matter of Review suffers from error of law apparent on record affecting jurisdiction of this Court. As the order of the District Judge could not be shown to suffer from any jurisdictional error within the framework of Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) nor could any been shown or suggested even at this stage that the order passed by subordinate Court and challenged in Civil Revision Petition under Section 115, suffered from any jurisdictional error within the framework of Section 115 of the Code (CPC), as such power under Section 115 could not be exercised and the revision could not be allowed and no order could be passed, except dismissing the revision. Secondly, the order had been passed against the parties without any notice to them. 14. As I have mentioned earlier, even at this stage no jurisdictional error could be pointed out in the order of Civil Court. So the Civil Revision under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) did not lie and could not be entertained. The contentions of the Counsel for Respondent Shri Raghupati that learned subordinate Court could only dismiss his application and could not pass an order of interim Management, in my opinion, is without substance. When inherent powers are invoked, then, it is not only open to the Court to allow or reject the application moved under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) instead the Court could make the order which was necessary for the purpose of due interim management of Trust during the interregnum period and during pendency of the suit. Thus, considered, in my opinion, the Review application has got substance and, as such, should be allowed as order dated 30.11.1999 suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record, and is hereby therefore allowed. 15. The order dated 30th of November, 1999 is reviewed and recalled, and Civil Revision Petition is hereby dismissed. It may be indicated Review application has been allowed, but revision petition filed under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is hereby dismissed.