Jitendra Mohan Gupta vs Ganga Dutt Bhardwaj And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 175 Del

Citation : 2005 Latest Caselaw 175 Del
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2005

Delhi High Court

Jitendra Mohan Gupta vs Ganga Dutt Bhardwaj And Anr. on 3 February, 2005

Equivalent citations: III (2005) BC 297, 118 (2005) DLT 116, (2005) 140 PLR 22

Author: C Mahajan

Bench: C Mahajan

ORDER

C.K. Mahajan, J.

1. This petition is directed against the Order dated 19th May, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 80/2002 dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 10, CPC.

2. Briefly stated facts of this case are that the petitioner had filed a suit; against the respondent for recovery of damages of Rs. 11,00,000/-. The respondent had failed to file the written statement within 90 days in terms of the amendment in Order 8, CPC. The petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 10, CPC for pronouncement of judgment, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence the present petition.

3. Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of present revision petition.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5. In terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Revision can be entertained only in respect of the order, if it had been made in favor of party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., II (2003) CLT 193 (SC)=(2003) 6 SCC 659 had the occasion to deal with the maintainability of revision application after the amendment. The Court observed that A plain reading of Section 115 as it stands makes clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favor of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceedings. 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.

7. From the perusal of Order 8 Rule 10, CFC it is clear that if the order had been decided in favor of the petitioner the effect would have been that the suit itself could have been disposed of Thus, the present revision petition is maintainable.

8. List on 26th May, 2005 for hearing.