Dismissed¶7

Attar Singh v. Nitin Shokeen & Anr.

Delhi HC2 May 2025C.R.P./106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; C.R.P. 106/2023; Attar Singh v. Nitin Shokeen & Anr.; Section 115 CPC revision; proviso to S.115; Order I Rule 10 CPC impleadment application dismissed; maintainability of revision against non-final/interim order; Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers (2003) 6 SCC 659 relied on; restoration application CM APPL. 71986/2024 allowed; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty; Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.; decision date 02.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition restored on the restoration application, and thereafter dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to agitate all contentions before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. ¶7

Attar Singh Vs Nitin Shokeen & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition restored on the restoration application, and thereafter dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to agitate all contentions before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against the Impugned Order, which did not finally dispose of the suit or proceedings. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

Revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable unless the order, if made in favour of the revisionist, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings; interim orders are not amenable to revision (stated while recording the maintainability position, relying on the proviso to S.115 and Shiv Shakti; no formal ruling was rendered as the Petition was withdrawn).

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The present Petition is restored and the restoration application (CM APPL. 71986/2024) stands disposed of.

¶2

Key takeaways

The Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner to agitate all contentions before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (C.R.P. 106/2023, decided 02.05.2025, Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.) — Attar Singh v. Nitin Shokeen & Anr. — Petition under S.115 CPC challenging an order dated 01.07.2022 of Ld. ADJ-03, Saket Court, dismissing the Petitioner's application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The Court first allowed the Petitioner's restoration application (CM APPL. 71986/2024) and restored the Petition. On maintainability, the Court observed that the proviso to S.115 CPC permits revision only where the order, if made in favour of the revisionist, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings, relying on Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 659. After arguments, counsel for the Petitioner was permitted to withdraw; the Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to agitate all contentions before the appropriate forum. The maintainability observations were made in the course of argument and no definitive ruling on maintainability was pronounced.

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 02.05.2025

¶4

- C.R.P. 106/2023

¶5

ATTAR SINGH .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

NITIN SHOKEEN & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶11

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

¶12

CM APPL. 71986/2024 [Restoration]

¶13

This is an Application filed by the Petitioner seeking restoration of the present Petition.

¶14

In view of the order that the Court proposes to pass today and for the reasons as stated in the Application, the present Petition is restored.

¶15

The Application stands disposed of.

¶16

C.R.P. 106/2023

¶17

The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (8CPC9) seeking to challenge an order dated 01.07.2022 passed by Ld. ADJ-03, Saket Court, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 8Impugned Order9]. By the Impugned Order, an Application filed by the Petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC has been dismissed.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:0 7.05.2025 11:45:48

¶20

C.R.P. 106/2023

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

The maintainability of this Petition is a subject matter of challenge. 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:

¶23

<Section 115 – Revision

¶24

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

¶25

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

¶26

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

¶27

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,

¶28

the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:

¶29

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. =

¶30

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶31

5.1 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

<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.

¶33

1 (2003) 6 SCC 659

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:0 7.05.2025 C.R.P. 106/2023 11:45:48

¶36

Page 2 of 3

¶37

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.=

¶38

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶39

After some arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks and is granted permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to agitate all the contentions before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶40