Revision petition against dismissal of interim applications under CPC held not maintainable. Court ruled Section 115 CPC does not apply to interlocutory orders that do not finally dispose of the suit, dismissing the petition.
Petition dismissed. Pending Application closed. Liberty granted to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~30
+ C.R.P. 171/2023 & CM APPL. 34462/2023 BABULAL MUNDHARA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Seemant K. Garg & Mrs. Himanshu, Advocates. versus SANJEEV SONI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar Mantoo, Mr. Hem Kumar & Ms. Nupur Mantoo, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Puneet Yadav, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
(i) Application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC for seeking permission to file additional documents;
(ii) Application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file the site plan;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:2 3.07.2025 01:42:28
C.R.P. 171/2023
Page 1 of 4
(iii) Application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to repair the roof of the tenanted rooms in the suit property bearing no. 63/215-217, Second floor, Bagh Diwar, Fatehpuri, Delhi;
(iv) Application under Section 151 CPC to modify/correct the order sheet dated 03.07.2017; and
(v) Application under Section 151 CPC to file additional list of witnesses on 27.11.2017.
“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]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:2 3.07.2025 C.R.P. 171/2023 01:42:28
Page 2 of 4
3.1 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.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
3.2 In the case of Gayatri Devi v. Shashi Pal Singh2 , 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
1 (2003) 6 SCC 659
2 (2005) 5 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:2 3.07.2025 C.R.P. 171/2023 01:42:28
Page 3 of 4
in nature or which does not finally decide the lis, cannot be challenged by way of a revision under Section 115 CPC. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
JULY 21, 2025/ ha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:2 3.07.2025 C.R.P. 171/2023 01:42:28
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an order dismissing interim applications for filing documents under CPC can be challenged under revision under Section 115 CPC.
Whether the proviso to Section 115 CPC bars revision against orders that do not finally dispose of the suit or proceedings.
Whether the order of the Learned ASCJ is maintainable in revision as it is interlocutory in nature.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors.Relied on¶19
(2003) 6 SCC 659 · Who else cites this
Gayatri Devi v. Shashi Pal SinghRelied on¶24
(2005) 5 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
BABULAL MUNDHARA
SANJEEV SONI
ORS
TARA VITASTA GANJU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
