JUDGMENT - V.G. PALSHIKAR, J.:---This revision application raises a substantial question of law of large public importance regarding maintainability of a revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after its amendment effective from 1st July, 2002. The question whether a revision application pending before this Court as of that day are liable to be decided in accordance with the amended provisions of section 115 or the amendments may not affect the pending revisions; what is the scope and extent of saving Clause in section 32 of the Amendment Act. These and analogous important questions occur with regularity in all cases that will come up for admission after 1st July, 2002. In my opinion, therefore, it is necessary that the view of this Court at least on the interpretation of these provisions, is taken and made known to all concerned.

2. Generally, it could be necessary to decide the scope and extent of the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine whether the revisions pending in this Court prior to 1st July, 2002 be maintained as if the amendments have not been effected or they are liable to be considered only in light of the amended provisions.

3. I had solicited the assistance of the learned members of the bar by inviting their participation and discussion on the question of scope and extent of the provisions of section 115 of Civil Procedure Code as amended by the Amendment Act of 1999. Several learned Counsel appeared and submitted their views on the scope and extent of the provisions of section 115 as amended.

4. Shri W.G. Charde, learned Advocate contended that taking into consideration the provisions of section 32 by which repeals and savings are effected, it is obvious that even the pending proceedings will have to be governed by section 115 as amended by section 12 of the Amendment Act, 1999. He pointed out the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1843)1, to contend that right of appeal is a substantive right, but there is no such substantive right of making an appeal under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for revision and hence it can be affected by the amendment. He contended that section 115 has always been a source of power for the High Court to supervise the Courts subordinate to it and it is never a right conferred on litigant aggrieved by an order of the subordinate Court to approach the High Court for injunction. That being the basic principle on which section 115 stood all these years, it cannot be said that to make an application thereunder is a right substantive in nature which cannot, therefore, be retrospectively affected.

5. Shri G.B. Lohiya, learned Advocate submitted that looking to the provisions of the Amending Act, it is obvious that the power of revision to be exercised by this Court is seriously circumscribed and revision applications can hereafter be maintained only in cases where the impugned order if passed in favour of the complaining party would have resulted in adjudication of the entire lis or would have finally disposed of that lis. However, he contended relying on the provisions of section 32 and section 6 of the General Clauses Act that the amendment being procedural in nature is prospective and, therefore, it does not affect pending revisions though the provisions of sub-section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act, 1999 does not so prescribe. According to the learned Counsel, it will have to be necessarily implied in the provisions of section 32(2)(i) that it will not affect pending revisions though he did not subscribe to the view canvassed by Shri Khapre that right to move a revision application is a vested substantive right.

6. Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in this revision application, contended that civil revision under section 115 is continuation of the entire proceedings commended by the institution of the civil suit. Like an appeal, a revision also is continu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document