The High Court held that a revision petition under Section 115 CPC challenging an interim order closing the right to lead evidence was not maintainable. The petition was withdrawn with liberty.
petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to agitate contentions before the appropriate forum.
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.
$~44
versus
MS DOLPHIN MART LTD AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
“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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 13:14:10
C.R.P. 239/2023 Page 1 of 3
(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]
2.1 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
1 (2003) 6 SCC 659
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 13:14:10
C.R.P. 239/2023 Page 2 of 3
a different stipulation.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
2.2 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 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
MAY 26, 2025/r
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
2 (2005) 5 SCC 527
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 13:14:10
C.R.P. 239/2023 Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC over an interim order preventing the petitioner from leading evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors.Relied on¶22
(2003) 6 SCC 659 · Who else cites this
Gayatri Devi v. Shashi Pal SinghRelied on¶30
(2005) 5 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Surender Sodhi
MS Dolphin Mart Ltd and another
Tara Vितasta Ganju
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
