IMPORTANT POINT
Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115 as amended by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999.

Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 115-As amended by Section 12(1) of CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999, operative from 1.7.2002-Effect of-Scope of appeal and revision-Right of appeal is a statutory substantive right-Section 15 is a source of power for High Court to supervise subordinate Courts -Scope for making revision under Section 115 is not linked with substantive right-(See paras 13 to 17).
       Held : Prior to the amendments to the Code by the Old Amendment Act, the power of revision was wider. By the amendment, certain positive restrictions were put on the High Court s power to deal with revisions under Section 115. Prior to the said amendment, it was not strictly necessary that the impugned order would have the result of finally deciding the lis or the proceedings in the lower courts. In fact, the power could be exercised in any case where jurisdictional error was committed by the original court or where substantial injustice had resulted. By the Old Amendment Act, the condition of finally deciding of lis and the proceedings in the subordinate courts was introduced. The proviso which was introduced contains qualifications which are pre-requisites before exercise of power under Section 115. They were clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso. Logically, the High Court has suo motu power to revise an order where total failure of justice would have occasioned or where irreparable loss would have caused to the parties against whom it was made. These powers were retained by clause (b). Though, after 1976, the exercise of power was somewhat circumscribed, it was not totally curtailed. In other words, the High Court could even after the 1976 amendment interfere in cases where there was failure of justice or irreparable loss caused, the nature of the proceedings was substantially changed and the suo motu power of the High Court was retained. It was in the nature of power of superintendence of the High Court over the subordinate courts. Changes were related to indicating limitations in exercise of power. Even after the amendments in 1976, in 1999 and prior to the amendment in 1976, the revision power was exercisable in a case where the order or the decree, as the case may be, was not appealable. Sub-section (2) which was introduced by the Old Amendment Act and retained even after present amendment, provides that the High Court shall not interfere where the order or the decree is appealable in courts subordinate to the High Court. (Paras 9 to 11)
       (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 115-Section 115 as amended by (Amendment) Act, 1999, operative from 1.7.2002-Field of operation of-Sub-section (2) of Section 115 has remained unaltered even after amendment-Addition of new sub-section (3)-Revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court -Inapplicability of Section 6 of General Clauses Act.
       Held : 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 of 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 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 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. (Para 32)
       In a case where a particular provision in the statute is omitted and in its place another provision dealing with the same contingency is introduced without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, then it can be reasonably inferred that the intention of the legislature is that the pending proceedings shall continue but a fresh proceeding for the same purpose may be initiated under the new provision. In view of what has been stated above the inevitable conclusion is that the High Courts were right in the conclusion about non-maintainability of revision applications. (Paras 33 and 34)
       (iii) Interpretation of Statutes-Legislative intent- Language employed in a statute is determinative factor-Object of interpretation of a statute is to ascertain intention of Legislature enacting it-Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act unless clear reason for it is to be found. (Paras 19 to 27)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. A short but important question of law involving effect of amendment to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code ) is involved in these appeals. Since the answer to the question does not involve any factual adjudication, a brief reference thereto would suffice.

3. By Section 12(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (in short the Amendment Act ) operative from 1.7.2002, amendments were made to Section 115 of the Code. In all these appeals, the concerned High Courts held that because of amended Section 115, the revision filed before them was not maintainable, as had an order been passed in favour of the party applying for revision, same would not have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court went wrong in disposing of the revision applications as not maintainable, on several grounds. They are (i) the amended provisions do not apply to petitions which were admitted before the amendment, (ii) appeals and revisions stand on a parallel footing and are vested rights in the appellant/applicant, as the case may be, and as such the amended provisions would not have any application, and (iii) the applications for injunction and the like which form subject matter of the revisions relate to the expression other proceeding and even if the amended provisions apply disposal of the revision would have meant final dismissal of such other proceeding .

5. With reference to Section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act, it is submitted that the same does not convey any meaning. The legislature always saved pending proceedings in terms of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1877 (in short General Clauses Act ) and, therefore, proceedings which were pending before the High Court on the date of amendment are clearly outside the effect of amendment. Even if it is conceded for the sake of arguments that there is no specific provision in that regard, it is clearly a case of casus omissus.

6. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that plain meaning of provisions of a statute have to be given full effect and even a bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the High Court s order is on terra firma. Whenever the legislature intended to keep the pending proceedings out of the purview of amended provisions, it was specifically so provided. Reference is made to the amendment in 1976 to the Code which in Section 97(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (in short Old Amendment Act ) saved the pending proceedings, ruling out operation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

7. In order to appreciate the rival submissions it will be necessary to take note of the provisions of Section 115 as they stood before amendment and after amendment.

"Section 115 (before Amendment):

(1) 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

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 order proceeding, except where-

(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or

(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or rev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 474

IMPORTANT POINTThose orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115 as amended by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999.

Cases Referred (12)

IMPORTANT POINT
Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115 as amended by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999.