Delhi High Court
Neelam Chandra vs Neeta Bahl & Ors on 16 May, 2025
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.05.2025
+ C.R.P. 58/2023
NEELAM CHANDRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Hegde & Mr. Abhinav
Hansaraman, Advocates.
versus
NEETA BAHL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajeshwari & Ms. Neeta Bhal,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Chirag Madan, ASC for MCD
with Mr. Rahul Agarwal & Mr. Ronit
Bose, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
1. 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 10.06.2022 passed by learned ASCJ, Tis
Hazari Court, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"]. By the
Impugned Order, an Application under Section 151 of the CPC was decided
by the learned Trial Court and a direction was passed that the matter be
listed for arguments on all pending Applications.
2. In addition to raising other objections, learned Counsel for the
Respondents raises an objection on the maintainability of the present
Petition. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the
Petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors.1.
In addition, it is stated that the Impugned Order has been assailed by the
Petitioner previously by filing another proceeding under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India which was disposed off by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court on 11.01.2023. Reliance is placed on an order passed by a Coordinate
Bench on 15.06.2022 and 11.01.2023 in CM(M) 598/2022 captioned
Neelam Chandra & Anr. v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.
3. It is no longer res integra that 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:
"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
(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]
(2003) 6 SCC 659
3.1 The Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v.
Swaraj Developers & Ors.2 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
a different stipulation."
[Emphasis Supplied]
3.2 In the case of Gayatri Devi v. Shashi Pal Singh3, 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
(2003) 6 SCC 659
(2005) 5 SCC 527
or which does not finally decide the lis, cannot be challenged by way of a
revision under Section 115 CPC."
[Emphasis Supplied]
4. Concededly, the Impugned Order is not an order which is amenable to
challenge under Section 115 of the CPC.
5. After some arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks and is
granted permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to agitate all
contentions before the appropriate forum.
6. The present Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the
liberty as prayed for, albeit in accordance with law.
7. The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MAY 16, 2025/ ha
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
