Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17.07.2025
ALPRO INDUSTRIES AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Archana Sharma, Mr. T.S Varun, Ms. Pooja Kumari and Mr. Deven Varun, Advocates
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. This Court had on 16.07.2025 passed the following directions:
(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.; (2003) 6 SCC 659 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: “32. A plain reading of Section 115 as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is “yes” then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is “no” then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. The legislative intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject-matter of revision under Section 115. There is marked distinction in the language of Section 97(3) of the Old Amendment Act and Section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act. While in the former, there was a clear legislative intent to save applications admitted or pending before the amendment came into force. Such an intent is significantly absent in Section 32(2)(i). The amendment relates to procedures. No person has a vested right in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a 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.” 2.[2] In the case of Gayatri Devi v. Shashi Pal Singh; (2005) 5 SCC 527, the Supreme Court while relying on the Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society case has held that an order interim in nature or which does not finally decide the lis, cannot be challenged by way of a revision under Section 115 CPC.
the stage of interlocutory proceedings. As laid down by this Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers [(2003) 6 SCC 659] an order interim in nature or which does not finally decide the lis, cannot be challenged by way of a revision under Section 115 CPC.”
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner requests for an adjournment.
4. At request, list on 17.07.2025 at the end of Supplementary list.”
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner seeks and is granted permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law with respect to his grievances.
3. The Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Pending Application stands closed.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J JULY 17, 2025 g.joshi