Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.05.2025
SHRI GULAB SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jha, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Abhishek Mudgal, Advocate for R-3.
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 05.11.2024 passed by the learned DJ-02 (NW), Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an Application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC filed by the Petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.
2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 submits that the maintainability of this Petition is a subject matter of challenge.
3. 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, which is extracted 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. 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:
proceed according to the altered mode, without exception, unless there is a different stipulation.” 4.[1] In the case of Gayatri Devi 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 Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending Application stands closed.
7. However, the Petitioner is granted liberty to agitate his contentions before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
8. The date already fixed, i.e., 03.07.2025 hereby stands cancelled.