Revision

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai

   Supreme Court of India 07 Aug 2003 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2003) 6 SCC 675

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Judgment of Main Case order-4.pdf 2003-08-07 DATE VERIFIED. CA 6110/2003 (SLP C 12492/2002). Lahoti/Bhan. The 1999 proviso to s.115 CPC curtails revision against interlocutory orders, but does not oust Articles 226/227. Later overruled in part by Radhey Shyam on Art 226 certiorari against civil-court judicial orders; still the teaching file for the s.115 amendment. Map CPC 115 only (226 already filled; 227 goes to Radhey Shyam).

   On this section: The 1999 proviso to s.115 curtails interlocutory revision but does not oust High Court superintendence; revision lies only if the order would finally dispose of the suit (Surya Dev Rai).

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Pioneer Surgical Co. vs Radha H. Joshi

   Supreme Court of India 27 Aug 2014 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Rent Control Acts (Haryana, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu) is limited to examining whether the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court or authority are 'according to law.' The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact merely because it disagrees with the conclusions of the lower court. However, the High Court may interfere if the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, involve misreading of evidence, overlook material evidence, or result in gross miscarriage of justice. The revisional power is wider than Section 115 CPC but narrower than full appellate power, and the revisional court is not a second court of first appeal.

   On this section: Provides revisional jurisdiction to High Court; Court used this as benchmark to compare scope of revisional power under Rent Control Acts, finding the latter to be wider

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Rajni Rani vs Khairati Lal

   Supreme Court of India 14 Oct 2014 Binding (SC) Reportable Reportable Judgment - Supreme Court of India

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When a counter-claim filed by a defendant in a suit is adjudicated and dismissed on merits by the trial court expressing an opinion that it is barred by the principles of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such order constitutes a final decree determining the conclusive rights of the defendant in relation to the counter-claim and must be challenged by way of appeal by paying the requisite court fee on the basis of the counter-claim valuation, not through a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court cannot entertain a revision petition to set aside such a final order dismissing a counter-claim as it amounts to interfering with a decree through supervisory jurisdiction which is not permissible in law.

   On this section: Revisional jurisdiction of court; discussed whether appropriate remedy for counter-claim dismissal

   Read the full order on eCourts India

4. Madanlal vs Shyamlal

   Supreme Court of India 09 Nov 2001 Persuasive - Division Bench Authority Reportable Civil Appeal No. 7810 Of 2001 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No.6309 Of 2001)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   An order of a trial court rejecting late production of documents under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC does not constitute 'material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction' within the meaning of Section 115 CPC merely because it is erroneous in its evaluation of whether good cause has been shown. The distinction must be maintained between errors of fact or law (which do not warrant revision) and actual material irregularities that occasion failure of justice (which do warrant intervention). A trial court's discretionary rejection of late-produced documents does not fall within the scope of material irregularity unless it can be shown that the refusal to consider undoubtedly genuine and relevant documents has occasioned a failure of justice.

   On this section: Governs revision petitions; revision can only be granted if court has acted with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction; errors of fact or law alone do not constitute material irregularity; must occasion failure of justice

   Read the full order on eCourts India

5. N. S. Vishwantha Shetty vs K. R. Shivaswamy

   Supreme Court of India 31 Mar 2005 Persuasive (Other HC/High Court guidance) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Proceedings pending before a High Court under Section 115 CPC (revision jurisdiction) are not 'proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Old Act' for purposes of Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999, and therefore such revision proceedings cannot be abated merely on the ground of the new Act coming into force. The High Court must decide revision petitions on their merits and cannot dismiss them based solely on a transitional abatement provision intended for proceedings directly initiated under the old Act.

   On this section: Provides for revision jurisdiction to High Courts. The nature of a proceeding under this section is crucial - whether it is deemed a proceeding 'initiated under the old Act' or a separate CPC proceeding.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

6. The Deputy Director Land Acquisition vs Malla Atchinaidu

   Supreme Court of India 12 Dec 2006 Binding (Supreme Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The core ratio decidendi of this judgment is threefold: (1) Section 152 CPC cannot be invoked to correct substantive findings of fact or to re-adjudicate matters already decided on their merits, even if framed as clerical corrections; any change that requires going behind an adjudicated fact (such as the number of trees on acquired land) is beyond the scope of Section 152 CPC, and such changes must be pursued through appeal, not revision under Section 115 CPC. (2) Where land has been valued with reference to its developmental potential or purpose (such as residential/commercial use), trees standing on that land cannot receive additional separate enhanced valuation; while trees can be awarded salvage/timber value, they cannot be valued independently when land potentiality valuation has already incorporated their presence. (3) In land acquisition disputes, a Single Judge of the High Court should not entertain a revision petition under Section 115 CPC when the same subject matter is already seized by a Division Bench in pending appeals, as this preempts the Division Bench's adjudicatory function and constitutes procedural impropriety.

   On this section: Civil Revision Petition jurisdiction of High Court; Court held that revision petition cannot be used to adjudicate factual matters or preempt appeals pending before Division Bench

   Read the full order on eCourts India

7. Kalamuddin M Ansari vs Govt. of India

   Supreme Court of India 06 Jul 2015 Binding (SC) - Landmark Judgment on Constitutional Interpretation Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge depends on the true nature of the jurisdiction exercised (whether Article 226, Article 227, or both) and the true character of the order passed, which is to be determined by examining the pleadings, the directions issued, and the constitutional jurisdictional framework - not by the nomenclature of the proceeding or a judge's statement about which article was used. Judicial orders of civil courts are exclusively amenable to Article 227 (superintendence) and not Article 226 (certiorari), and no Letters Patent appeal lies against orders passed purely under Article 227. Orders of tribunals and authorities (except civil courts) may be amenable to Article 226 writ petitions if conditions for certiorari are satisfied, and if a petition is filed under both Articles 226 and 227 with Article 226 as the principal basis, Letters Patent appeal is maintainable despite Clause 15 bar. Whether a tribunal/authority must be a party depends on whether it is legally entitled to defend the order, with civil courts standing on a different footing from adjudicating authorities and tribunals.

   On this section: The Court held that when Parliament has barred revision under Section 115 CPC, a petition under Article 227 may lie, but not under Article 226. The restriction of revisional jurisdiction does not affect Article 227 superintending jurisdiction.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

8. Jogendrasinhgji Vikaysinhji vs State of Gujarat & ORS

   Supreme Court of India 06 Jul 2015 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against an order of a Single Judge in writ proceedings depends on the true nature of the order and jurisdiction exercised, determined by examining: (1) the jurisdiction invoked in the petition; (2) pleadings and prayers therein; (3) the nature and character of the order passed by the Single Judge; (4) the type and consequences of directions issued; and (5) the factual matrix justifying invocation of jurisdiction. Where a petition is filed under both Articles 226 and 227, and facts justify, the application should be treated as Article 226 if the substantial part of the order falls within Article 226 jurisdiction, making appeal maintainable. An order purely under Article 227 (superintendence jurisdiction) is not appealable. For civil courts, orders are only amenable to Article 227 jurisdiction, not Article 226, and therefore no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. Tribunal or authority required in law to defend its order is a necessary party; failure to implead makes petition not maintainable or court may grant liberty to implead. However, tribunals not required to defend their orders (e.g., administrative tribunals, electoral tribunals) need not be impleaded as parties.

   On this section: Revisional jurisdiction of High Court over subordinate courts. Court examined relationship between Section 115 bar and availability of Article 227 jurisdiction. Held that when Section 115 remedy is barred by statute, Article 227 becomes available remedy.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

9. Asian Techs LTD vs Union of India

   Supreme Court of India 07 Sep 2009 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable Reportable Judgment

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   1. In construction contracts with arbitration clauses, when a dispute involves (a) work done beyond the original contract period due to government default, (b) material alterations and additions (not mere deviations), and (c) amounts exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the government's designated authority (CWE with Rs. 20,000 limit), the arbitrator has jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes notwithstanding finality clauses in the contract, as such finality clauses apply only within the pecuniary jurisdiction limits and to deviations only. 2. Clauses in government construction contracts that purport to prevent departmental claims for compensation arising from extensions of time do not prevent an arbitrator from entertaining such claims, as the arbitrator derives independent jurisdiction from the arbitration clause. 3. Government authorities cannot, after granting extensions of time on specific assurances that rates will be settled across the table, subsequently contend that no claims for compensation can be entertained. 4. Courts have very limited scope to interfere with non-speaking arbitral awards; interference is permissible only to examine whether the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction, not to reappraise evidence or interpret the contract afresh.

   On this section: Application under Section 115 does not lie to challenge decree passed in terms of award, as established in Essar Constructions case

   Read the full order on eCourts India

10. Hemant C. Jadav vs S'ad Vidya Mandal & ORS

    Supreme Court of India 06 Jul 2015 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed by a Single Judge depends on whether the true nature of the order, as determined by examining the pleadings, relief prayed, the contour and character of the order, and the grounds of challenge, falls substantially under Article 226 (original jurisdiction) or solely under Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction). Orders passed solely under Article 227 are not subject to Letters Patent Appeals. Where facts justify filing under both Articles 226 and 227, and the Single Judge substantially invoked Article 226 jurisdiction even if ancillary Article 227 directions are issued, the appeal shall be maintainable. Judicial orders of civil courts are exclusively amenable under Article 227 and not Article 226. A tribunal or authority required to defend its own order is a necessary party to the writ proceedings; if not impleaded as party in the original petition, the proceeding may be treated as not maintainable unless the court exercises discretion to permit impleadment.

    On this section: Section 115 provides revision jurisdiction to High Courts over judicial orders; when remedy of revision under Section 115 CPC has been expressly barred by a State enactment, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie but not under Article 226; a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be filed merely because an order is wrong; there must be jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice

    Read the full order on eCourts India

11. Omshridevi Virendrasinh Rajput vs Prajesh Coop. Hous. Soc. Ltd. Thr. Secr. & ANR

    Supreme Court of India 06 Jul 2015 Binding (SC) - Landmark Precedent Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal depends on whether the Single Judge exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution (which is original jurisdiction and therefore appealable) or exclusively under Article 227 (which is supervisory jurisdiction and not appealable). The determination requires examination of pleadings, nature and character of order, type of directions issued, and jurisdictional context - not merely the label used by the judge. For orders of civil courts, only Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is available, not Article 226 writ jurisdiction. For orders of tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, Article 226 writ jurisdiction may be available if grounds for certiorari are established and the tribunal entitled to defend its order is properly impleaded. Only authorities and tribunals entitled by law to defend their orders are necessary parties; civil courts and purely adjudicatory tribunals not involved in the 'lis' need not be impleaded as parties for the writ petition to be maintainable.

    On this section: Revisional jurisdiction of High Court. When remedy under Section 115 CPC is expressly barred, petition under Article 227 may lie instead of Article 226.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

12. Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G. Navarekar (dead) by Lrs.

    Supreme Court of India 14 Dec 2009 Persuasive (Supreme Court guidance on statutory interpretation) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 121A of the Karnataka Land Reform Act, 1961 is entitled to interfere with concurrent findings of fact when the conclusion runs contrary to materials on record, there is no reliable evidence supporting the conclusion, or the reasons given are absolutely perverse. In tenancy disputes, statutory presumptions arising from revenue records must be given substantial weight, and a person claiming tenancy status must produce concrete, reliable evidence (such as receipts or specific rebuttal evidence) to overcome these presumptions. Mere oral testimony without documentary support, combined with speculative inferences about the landlord's inability to cultivate due to non-residence, does not constitute sufficient evidence to establish tenancy rights. The burden rests upon the claimant to demonstrate through material evidence that the statutory presumption is false or that tenancy existed despite contrary revenue entries.

    On this section: Defines the High Court's limited revisional jurisdiction restricted to jurisdictional errors and material irregularities. Distinguished from Section 121A of the Land Reform Act which has a broader scope.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

13. Balraj Taneja vs Sunil Madan

    Supreme Court of India 08 Sep 1999 Binding (SC) - Landmark Precedent

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    When a defendant fails to file a written statement as required by Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has discretionary power under Order 8 Rule 10 to either pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. This discretion cannot be exercised mechanically or punitively. Before the court can proceed to decree a suit under Order 8 Rule 10, particularly in cases like specific performance, the court must: (1) satisfy itself that even if facts in the plaint are treated as admitted due to non-filing of written statement, a judgment can legally be passed in favor of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact; (2) ascertain that no disputed questions of fact exist within the plaint itself requiring investigation; (3) ensure that all mandatory legal requirements for the relief sought (such as Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act requiring plaintiff's readiness and willingness) are satisfied; (4) exercise its discretion judicially, considering all circumstances of the case, and not punitively due to procedural default; and (5) write a proper judgment containing concise statement of case, points for determination, decision, and reasons as mandated by Section 2(9) and Order 20 Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A bare decree without reasoning is a material irregularity. Where the plaint itself contains disputed assertions regarding crucial facts (as where defendant claims certificate was sent but plaintiff denies receipt), these disputed facts cannot be treated as admitted merely due to non-filing of written statement; they must be proved by the plaintiff. The court must be cautious and must not proceed blindly under Order 8 Rule 10.

    On this section: Cited regarding material irregularity in judgment; passing mere decree without grounds amounts to material irregularity

    Read the full order on eCourts India

14. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava vs Mohit Bhargava

    Supreme Court of India 20 Apr 2007 Binding (Supreme Court)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    When a decree holder seeks to execute a decree against immovable property lying outside the territorial jurisdiction of the executing court, the executing court is mandatorily bound (not discretionary) to transfer the decree to the court within whose local limits the property is situated, unless the property constitutes an estate or tenure that falls within the jurisdiction of multiple courts under Order XXI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This mandate arises from Section 39(4) of the Code as amended by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 (effective 1.7.2002), which withdrew the earlier discretionary power and imposed a duty on executing courts to desist from proceeding against property outside their jurisdiction. However, interim restraint orders (such as Mareva injunctions or freezing orders) can be validly passed and maintained by a court even if the property is outside its jurisdiction, as these are orders of restraint and not orders of final execution, and do not attract the jurisdictional limitation of Section 39(4).

    On this section: Revision jurisdiction; found not maintainable by High Court for challenging execution orders; party then approached High Court under Article 227.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

15. Government of Orissa vs Ashok Transport Agency

    Supreme Court of India 05 Nov 2004 Binding (Supreme Court)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    When a company is dissolved through statutory amalgamation under Section 396 of the Companies Act, and a decree is obtained against the dissolved company after the amalgamation, the successor company(ies) cannot be bound by such decree in execution proceedings unless they have been properly impleaded in the suit prior to the decree. The Amalgamation Order, through its saving clause, confers on creditors the right to proceed against the resulting company but simultaneously imposes the obligation to implead that resulting company. Failure to do so renders the decree unenforceable against the successor, and the proper remedy is to set aside the decree and remand for fresh trial with proper impleadment, affording the successor an opportunity to defend.

    On this section: Revisional jurisdiction under which the High Court of Orissa heard the revisions against the Executing Court's order.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

16. M.c.d. vs Tarwant Kaur

    High Court 16 Jul 2003 Persuasive (Other HC)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Applications for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are not subject to the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Delay in filing such an application cannot be a ground for rejection if the amendment is necessary for just and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. A defendant is entitled to raise mutually inconsistent pleas if relief could be founded on the alternative plea, and amendments to the written statement are treated differently from amendments to the plaint.

    On this section: Provides the basis for the revision petition filed before the High Court to challenge the trial court's order.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.