Seema Arora v. Mistral Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] inter alia seeking the following prayers: “a. Pass an order directing the Hon'ble Court DJ-03, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi to accept all those documents that were by mistakenly dismissed/rejected by the Hon'ble Court. b. Pass an order directing the Hon'ble Court, DJ-03, Saket Court, New Delhi to set aside the order dated 07.06.2023 and allow the application under Order 6 Rule 17. c. Pass an order directing the Hon'ble Court, DJ-03, Saket Court, New Delhi to set aside the order dated 05.09.2024 and to allow the Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC filed on dated 19.07.2023 and other documents on the judicial record, as they were initially unavailable to the Revisionist and also, they are very relevant for the adjudication of the suit.”

2. It is noticed that the Petition has been wrongly listed by the Registry since prayer (b) in the Petition is a challenge to an order dated 07.06.2023, while prayer (c) is a challenge to an order dated 05.09.2024. 2.[1] The Petition is clearly barred by time.

3. In addition, the maintainability of this Petition is a subject matter of challenge. The orders passed in the present case have been passed by the learned Trial Court in two separate applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The learned Trial Court has by the Impugned Orders dated 05.09.2024 & 07.06.2023 dismissed both these applications.

4. 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 of the suit or proceedings. This is set out in the proviso to Section 115 of the CPC 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] 4.[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: “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.” 4.[2] In the case of Gayatri Devi & Ors v. Shashi Pal Singh[2], 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. “14. In the first place, it appears to us that the revision petition before the High Court was wholly incompetent in view of the amended provision of Section 115 CPC. The revision petition was entertained at 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.”

5. Concededly, the Impugned Order is not an order which is amenable to challenge under Section 115 of the CPC.

6. The present Petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending Applications stand closed.

7. However, this order does not preclude the Petitioner from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances.