Delhi High Court
Mona Maurya & Ors. vs Lalit Maurya & Ors. on 12 October, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. 71/2015 & CM APPL.8863-8864/2015
Decided on: 12th October, 2015
MONA MAURYA & ORS. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri, Advocate with
Mr. Satender Kumar Rai, Advocate,
Ms. Smriti Dua, Advocate &
Ms. Ambika Bedi, Advocate
Versus
LALIT MAURYA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order
dated 16.03.2015 by virtue of which the application of the
petitioners under Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the petitioners
(judgment debtors) for removal of locks from property No.5469-
5470 & 5471, Reghgarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110051 was
dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that one Mohar Singh filed a suit for
dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against Ganga
Ram and Lalu Ram. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was
passed on 19.09.1988 by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi. An
appeal was taken out by the JDs against the said judgment which
was decided on 12.02.1990 upholding the preliminary decree and it
was stated that out of 225 sq. yds. area of three plots, the decree
holder, namely, Mohar Singh was entitled to 2/16th share. The said
decree had attained finality as the appeal to the High Court was
also not successful. Thereafter, no final decree was passed,
however, an application was filed by the decree holder for
appointment of a receiver and for taking up the possession of the
suit property. This application was allowed on 23.04.1993. No
appeal was taken against the said order, therefore, the said order of
appointment of the receiver and taking the possession became final.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the receiver is still in possession of the suit properties.
3. Thereafter, an application was filed by the judgment debtors for
removal of locks from suit property which has been rejected by the
learned Civil Judge on the ground that since the basic order of
appointment of receiver for taking of the possession has not been
challenged, therefore, the application for removal of locks is not
maintainable and the same was dismissed as misconceived.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition has been preferred
by the present petitioners.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone
through the record.
6. In my considered opinion, the present revision petition is not
maintainable because even if this application of removal of locks
would have been allowed in favour of the revisionists, it would not
have resulted in termination of the proceedings which is a pre-
condition for entertaining the revision. This would be very clear
from the language of Section 115 CPC which after amendment
restricts the ambit of revision to a very limited extent only to cases
where the relief if it would have been granted to the petitioner who
has preferred the revision petition, it would result in termination of
proceedings. These lines have been highlighted by me in the
provision. I am reproducing here Section 115 CPC as under:-
"115. Revision.- (1) The High Court may call for the
record of any case which has been decide 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.
(2) ............
(3) ............"
7. A perusal of the aforesaid Section 115 proviso especially the later
part would show that revision is entertainable only if the applicant
who has preferred the revision would have been granted the relief
by the trial Court it would have resulted in termination of the entire
proceedings.
8. Accordingly, the revision petition is not maintainable.
9. However, since the revision has been pending for the last number
of dates, I feel that the revision even if treated as a petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not deserves to be
entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed.
10. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
V.K. SHALI, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2015
vk
