Full Text
I
$-46.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.R.P.No.147/2017 JAGDISHPRASHAD MEHTA & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Navaneet Kumar and Mr. Kaushal,Advs.
Through: None.
11.07.2017 CM No.23789/2017(for exemption).
ORDER
1. Allowed,subjecttojust exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of. C.R.P.No.147/2017.
3. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC)impugns the order dated lO"^ March, 2017 of the Civil Judge ofdismissal ofan application filed by the petitioner/ defendant for review of the order dated 3''' September, 2016 of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 ofthe CPC.
4. The order dated 3'"''September,2016 has not been challenged.
5. I have thus enquired from the counsel for the petitioner/defendant as to how a Revision Petition under Section 115 is maintainable.
6. The counsel for the petitioner / defendant states that the learned Civil Judge has failed to exercisejurisdiction vested in it and /or has acted in C.R.P. No.147/2017 P^Se t of[2] 2017:DHC:8801 / exercise ofitsjurisdiction illegally and immaterially.
7. However the proviso to Section 115 of the CPC provides that this Court shall not under Section 115 ofthe CPC vary or reverse any order made in the course ofa suit except where the order,ifit had been made in favour of the party applying forrevision,would have finally disposed ofthe suit.
8. If the application of the petitioner / defendant for review had been allowed, that would have only resulted in the application under Order VII Rule 11 ofthe CPC being heard again and would not have resulted in the final disposal ofthe suit.
9. Even otherwise the purport ofthe Order XLVII Rule 7(1)ofthe CPC is that againstan order ofrejection ofreview no remedy can be availed of.
10. The petition is thus dismissed as not maintainable JULY 11,2017 PP C.R.P. No.147/2017 RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW,J page2of[2]