SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Cal) 44

SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
MRITYUNJAY SEN – Appellant
Versus
SIKHA SEN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ABHIJIT KUMAR GHOSH, SUBAL KR.MAITRA, SUDHIR DAS GUPTA

S. K. MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN this case I am invited to decide the scope of the power of revision of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999.

( 2 ) AS the point involved in this case is a matter of general importance, I requested the learned members of the Bar to appear and assist me on the question of maintainability and scope of civil revision cases in view of the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999.

( 3 ) MR Sudhis Dasgupta, learned senior advocate, appearing in support of this revisional application, argued that in spite of amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by the amending Act of 1999, the High Court is not denuded of its revisional power in respect of interlocutory orders, which are not subject to appeals. Mr. Dasgupta argued that the expression ?any case which has been decided? by any Court subordinate to such High Court includes part of a suit/proceeding and there cannot be any restriction on the exercise of the power of revision by the High Court. Mr. Dasgupta argued that ?other proceeding? includes interlocutory proceed
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top