Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 30.04.2025
M/S SAI WATCHES PVT. CO. LTD. & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Parth Yadav, Advocate.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] seeking to challenge an order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, South-East, Saket, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”].
2. The order under challenge in the present Petition is an order which directs issue of summons and notice in the suit and directs filing of deficit Court fee.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Impugned Order directs the Petitioners (Plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court) to pay ad valerum Court fee instead of Court fee to be paid in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
4. At the outset, a query has been put to learned Counsel for the Petitioners as to how the present Petition is maintainable in view of the Proviso to Section 115, CPC and learned Counsel in this behalf seeks to rely on the judgment of the Delhi High Court Bar Association & Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi[1].
5. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are without merit. 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 disposed off the suit or proceedings. This is set out in the proviso to Section 115 of the CPC, which is reproduced 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]
6. The Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors.[2] has held that unless the order if given in favour of the party applying for the revision would give finality to the suit or other proceeding, a revision is not maintainable. The relevant extract of the Shiv
Shakti case is set out below:
7. Since clearly, the Impugned Order is not an order which if granted in favour of the party, applying for revision would have given finality to the suit but is instead an order directing notice of issue and summons and payment of deficit Court fee, such an order could not be challenged in a Petition under Section 115, CPC, in view of the proviso of this Section.
8. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
9. Liberty is however granted to the Petitioners to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for the redressal of his grievances.