Rustom v. Hapangama & Co. – 1978_79_80 volume 1 page 352

In the case between Rustom (landlord, plaintiff-appellant) and Hapangama & Co. (defendant-respondent), the court addressed whether revisionary powers under Section 753 of the Civil Procedure Code could be invoked when the right of appeal under Section 754(2) was available but not pursued. It was determined that the proper exercise of revisionary jurisdiction is precluded where an alternative statutory remedy exists, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. Reliance was placed on leading statutory interpretation and precedents, establishing that the revisionary power is discretionary and not a substitute for appeal. The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

Ismail J. — The circumstances of the case revealed that the appellant failed to utilize the appeal process ava