The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the dismissal of a review application does not affect the rights of parties, and the potential prejudice to parties if the revisional court interferes with a decree against which an appeal lies.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an interlocutory order dtd. 5/8/2016 in I.A.No.521 of 2015 in I.A.No.1188 of 2014 in I.A.No.111 of 2005 in O.S.No.30 of 1988, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District.

2. The facts leading to Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioners in the course of final decree proceedings filed I.A.No.1188 of 2014 to conduct auction of B-Schedule property, and the respondents filed their counter opposing the same. The trial Court without considering the said application passed final decree in I.A.No.111 of 2005 in O.S.No.30 of 1988 on 31/3/2015 giving liberty to file separate application with regard to "B" Schedule property. As no orders were passed in I.A.No.1188 of 2014 and as the application was closed, the petitioners filed I.A.No.521 of 2015 under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to review the order, dtd. 31/3/2015, passed in I.A.No.1188 of 2014. The trial Court, vide its order, dtd. 5/8/2016, dismissed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The primary question that falls for consideration in the Civil Revision Petition is: "whether the C.R.P. against a dismissal of a review application is maintainable?"

4. The remedy of revisional jurisdiction or the appellate jurisdiction vis-a-vis is for the orders affecting the rights and interests of the parties. Dismissal of a review application does not affect the rights of parties, as the principal order affecting the rights of the parties in this case is the order passed in I.A.No.1188 of 2014, dtd. 31/3/2015, which was closed.

5. It is also to be noted that this is the underlying principle under Order 47 Rule 7 (1) of C.P.C., "an order of the Court rejecting an application for review shall not be appealable" as introduced under C.P.C amendment vide Act 104 of 1976. Though there is no specific bar under Sec. 115 C.P.C., but, courts while interpreting provisions of law should not adopt an interpretation which short circuits that scheme of C.P.C and entertain the present C.R.P under Sec. 115 C.P.C.

6. The second way of examining this case is that the present application was filed to review final decree passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.111 of 2005 in O.S.No.30 of 1988. The said final decree is appealable under Sec. 96 C.P.C and Sec. 115 (2) C.P.C prohibits this Court from entertaining any revision against an order or decree against which an appeal lies. The Sec. 115 (2) C.P.C is extracted below:

"(2) The High Court shall not, under this Sec., vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto."

7. If the revisional Court interferes and allows the I.A. filed for review, the decree of the trial Court would stand modified and the party aggrieved by the same would stand affected on account of merger as he would be left without remedy of appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered this aspect in Rahimal Bathu & others vs. Ashiyal Beevi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 829 opined at para 27 as under:

27. In the instant case, the trial court, which had jurisdiction to allow or dismiss the review application, dismissed the review application on merits. If it had granted the review, the aggrieved party would have had a right to file an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (w) read with Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC. And if it had allowed the review and simultaneously altered/modified/reversed the decree, the aggrieved party would have had a right to file an appeal against the said decree. But, if the revisional court does the same, as has been done by the High Court while passing the impugned order, an anomalous situation would arise. The decree passed by the trial court would stand modified by the High Court. Therefore, if the defendant(s) against whom the decree is passed were to challenge the same, they would be at a disadvantage on account of the merger. Whereas, from the stand poin