Dismissed¶37

Tata Capital Limited v. Krishan Kumar Garg & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Sept 2025C.R.P./253/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 115 CPC revision maintainability; interim or non-final order not revisable; proviso to Section 115 CPC — revision valid only if order would finally dispose of suit; challenge to closure of right to file written statement (para 36 of Impugned Order); Order VII Rule 11 CPC order conceded not the object of challenge; Tata Capital Limited v. Krishan Kumar Garg & Anr.; District Judge-01, Karkardooma Courts, order dated 16.04.2024; relies on Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society (2003) 6 SCC 659 and Gayatri Devi (2005) 5 SCC 527; petition dismissed, applications closed, liberty granted; Delhi High Court; Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.; decision 04.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances ¶37

Tata Capital Limited Vs Krishan Kumar Garg & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the Petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's challenge to the Trial Court's closure of its right to file a written statement (as opposed to the Order VII Rule 11 order itself) can be adjudicated under the revisionary jurisdiction of Section 115 CPC.

¶13

Court's answer

A challenge to the Trial Court's finding closing the Petitioner's right to file a written statement, rather than to the Order VII Rule 11 order itself, cannot be adjudicated under the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The provisions of Section 115 CPC cannot be invoked except where an order, if made in favour of the revisionist, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.), 04.09.2025 — C.R.P. 253/2025 & CM APPL. 55966-55968/2025 (Tata Capital Limited v. Krishan Kumar Garg & Anr.). Revision petition under S.115 CPC directed against the District Judge-01 (North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi) order dated 16.04.2024. Counsel conceded he was not aggrieved by the Order VII Rule 11 CPC order per se but only by the Trial Court's finding (para 36 of the Impugned Order) closing the Petitioner's right to file a written statement. Holding (ratio): such a challenge cannot be adjudicated under the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court; S.115 CPC cannot be invoked except where the order, if made in favour of the revisionist, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings (proviso to S.115). Relied on Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 659, and Gayatri Devi v. Shashi Pal Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 527 (orders interim in nature or not finally deciding the lis are not revisable under S.115 CPC). Petition dismissed; pending applications closed; liberty granted to seek redress of the grievance otherwise in accordance with law.

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 04.09.2025

¶4

- C.R.P. 253/2025 & CM APPL. 55966-55968/2025

¶5

TATA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Pathak, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

KRISHAN KUMAR GARG & ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through:

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

¶11

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”] against the order dated 16.04.2024 passed by learned District Judge01, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”].

¶12

After some arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is not aggrieved by the Order under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC per se however he is aggrieved by the finding of the learned Trial Court which has closed its right to file written statement. Learned Counsel seeks to rely upon paragraph 36 of the Impugned Order in this behalf.

¶13

Concededly, such a challenge cannot be adjudicated under the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court. 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:

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:0 5.09.2025 15:10:59

¶16

C.R.P. 253/2025 Page 1 of 3

¶17

“Section 115 – Revision

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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. ”

¶24

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶25

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:

¶26

“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

¶27

1 (2003) 6 SCC 659

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:0 5.09.2025 15:10:59

¶30

C.R.P. 253/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶31

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.”

¶32

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶33

4.1 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.

¶34

“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. ”

¶35

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶36