Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.05.2025
ANITA SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.
Through: Mr. C. Prakash, Mr. Shrey Tanwar, Mr. Abhishek Rana, Ms. Mansi Shukla and Mr. Manav Kumar, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the order dated 03.05.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ADJ-01, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Application filed on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants before the learned Trial Court) under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC was allowed.
2. The maintainability of this Petition is a subject matter of challenge. It is no longer res integra that the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC cannot be invoked except where an order if made in favour of the revisionist would have finally dispose of the suit or proceedings. This is set out in the proviso to Section 115 of the CPC, which is below: “Section 115 – Revision 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: 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 the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.” [Emphasis Supplied] 2.[1] The Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors.[1] has held that unless the order if given in favour of the party applying for the revision would have given finality to the suit or other proceeding, a revision is not maintainable. The relevant extract of the Shiv Shakti case is set out below:
statutory change the mode of procedure is altered, the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception, unless there is a different stipulation.” [Emphasis Supplied]
3. Concededly, the Impugned Order is in the nature of an interim order and does not finally decide the lis between the parties.
4. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. Pending Application also stands closed.
5. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps albeit in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances.
6. Interim order dated 01.07.2024 stands vacated.