Delhi High Court Dismisses Civil Revision Petition Under Section 115 CPC, Holds That Revision Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Orders: “Order does not finally decide the lis and is not amenable to revision”

Share this article

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC as withdrawn, holding that the impugned order—being interlocutory in nature—was not amenable to challenge. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to raise all contentions before the appropriate forum, “albeit in accordance with law.”

Facts

The petitioner had filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging an order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The impugned order had decided an application filed under Section 151 CPC and directed that arguments on all pending applications be heard.

Respondents objected to the maintainability of the revision petition, arguing that the petitioner had previously assailed the same impugned order through a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was disposed of by a coordinate bench on 11.01.2023.

Issues

Whether a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against an interlocutory order that does not finally dispose of the suit.
Whether the petitioner was precluded from filing the revision in light of previous proceedings under Article 227.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Although the detailed arguments of the petitioner are not set out, the petitioner sought to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 CPC to challenge the impugned order passed by the trial court.

Respondent’s Arguments

The petition was not maintainable under Section 115 CPC in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors..
The impugned order had already been challenged earlier in CM(M) 598/2022, a proceeding under Article 227, and disposed of on 11.01.2023.
The order in question was interlocutory and thus not subject to revision under Section 115 CPC.

Analysis of the Law

The Court examined the scope of Section 115 CPC, particularly the proviso that restricts the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to only such orders which, if made in favour of the revisionist, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings.

The proviso to Section 115 CPC reads:

“…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.”

The Court reiterated that it is well settled that Section 115 CPC cannot be invoked for interim orders that do not finally decide the lis.

Precedent Analysis

Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors. [(2003) 6 SCC 659]
- Held that a revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable if the impugned order is interim in nature and does not finally dispose of the suit.
- Quoted by the Court: “If the impugned order is interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable.”
Gayatri Devi v. Shashi Pal Singh [(2005) 5 SCC 527]
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that revision against interlocutory orders is barred under Section 115 CPC post-amendment.
- Quoted by the Court: “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.”

Court’s Reasoning

The Court held:

“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.”

Since the order in question was merely procedural—listing the matter for hearing on pending applications—it did not result in final adjudication of any substantive issue. Hence, it did not satisfy the threshold under Section 115 CPC for maintainability.

Conclusion

The petition under Section 115 CPC was found to be not maintainable as the impugned order was interlocutory and did not decide the lis. On request, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to withdraw the petition and pursue remedies before the appropriate forum, subject to law.

Implications

This decision reinforces the limited scope of Section 115 CPC post-amendment, emphasizing that revision petitions cannot be used to challenge interim orders unless such orders finally determine the rights of the parties. The judgment reiterates the necessity of adhering strictly to the statutory framework and procedural limitations for invoking revisional jurisdiction.

DHC1 Download

Also Read – Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Recall FIR Quashing Order on Ground of Compromise Breach – “Violation of Terms of Compromise Is Foreign to Law and Cannot Justify Review Under Section 482 CrPC Where Bar Under Section 362 CrPC Is Absolute”