Delhi High Court
Raja Ram vs T.P. Verghese Thr. Lrs. on 1 October, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. 57/2015 & CM APPL.7273/2015 & 13327/2015
Decided on: 1st October, 2015
RAJA RAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Advocate
versus
T.P. VERGHESE THR. LRS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner by virtue of the present revision petition has
challenged two orders one dated 24.01.2015 and the other dated
28.02.2014. As a matter of fact both these two orders could not
have been challenged by the petitioner Raja Ram in the same
revision petition by filing a common petition. However, without
going into that aspect of the matter, it is stated that the respondent
T.P. Verghese filed a suit for recovery of Rs.85,000/- against the
present petitioner Raja Ram. The aforesaid suit resulted in passing
of a decree against the petitioner Raja Ram on 12.09.2012.
2. Raja Ram filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated
12.09.2012. On 18.09.2013, the present petitioner-Raja Ram was
informed about the death of the appellant-T.P. Verghese.
However, no application for substitution of LRs was filed on behalf
of the LRs of the deceased T.P.Verghese and by virtue of operation
of law after expiry of 90 days period of limitation, the appeal was
treated to have been abated. Thereafter the matter was received by
transfer by another Court which passed an order on 28.02.2014
which Court had taken cognizance of all these facts and reiterated
the abetment of appeal.
3. The petitioner filed an application for substitution of the LRs
which was also dismissed by the learned ADJ vide order dated
24.01.2015 holding that no valid justification was given for belated
filing of the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC read with
Section 9(2) of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act which
could be termed to be constituting a sufficient cause and according
the application was dismissed. The net result was that the decree
stood against Raja Ram and his estate.
4. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Raja
Ram against the two orders dated 28.02.2014 and 24.01.2015.
5. Without going into the merits of the matter, a revision petition
under Section 115 CPC after insertion of proviso by an amendment
is very limited. Now, a revision is entertainable only if the
revisionist is able to show that the impugned order was decided in
his favour then the suit would have finally terminated. Meaning
thereby, the entire effort of the amendment is to cut the litigation
and bring the litigation to an end in case the order on the
application of the revisionist is passed in his favour.
6. In the instant case it could hardly be said that if the applications
would have been allowed then the matter would have come to an
end. On the contrary, Since the LRs of T.P. Verghese would have
been impleaded in the appeal against decree and the matter would
have continued to be adjudicated by assailing the subsequent order
and judgment passed in proceedings.
7. The learned counsel for the revisionist/petitioner has placed
reliance on a judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sat Pal
L. Rameshwar Dial & Anr. v. Budha Lalji & Ors., AIR 1968 PH 70
to contend that a revision would lie in the instant case.
8. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present
case for the simple reason this is a judgment which has been passed
by the High Court as per the un-amended provision of Section 115
and therefore, it will not regulate the facts of the present case as
post 1999 there is an amendment in the revision provision limiting
the interference by the revisionist court as has been observed
above.
9. Accordingly, the revision petition is without any merit as well as
barred by law, therefore, the same is dismissed.
10. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
V.K. SHALI, J.
OCTOBER 01, 2015
vk
