Back
RAMESH SINHA, PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Shrey Chouksey S/o Sh. Mukesh Chouksey – Appellant
Versus
Raghuwar Dayal Singhal S/o Late Sh. Shivdayal Singhal – Respondent
ORDER :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. Learned Single Judge taking note of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this High Court in case of R.S. Bajwa & Co. v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2013 (II) MPJR96, has referred following question for determination by a Larger Bench;-
“Whether proviso to Section115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as substituted by Act 46 of 1999, bars revision, if the proceedings revive instead being finally disposed off?
2. Before we proceed to deal with the question referred, we think it proper to narrate the facts of civil revision as also arguments advanced by learned counsel for respective parties, giving rise to the reference in question.
3. Some dispute arose out of an agreement entered between the petitioner and respondents which was referred to the Sole Arbitrator, who, in turn, passed the award dated 27.10.2014. Petitioners filed an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') read with Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') before the District Judge, Bilaspur for execution/enforcement of award. In an execution proceeding, respondents have submitted a
The central legal point established in the judgment is the material restrictions imposed on the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the amended S. 115 of the CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proviso to Section 115 (1) CPC applies to interim non-appealable orders made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, and does not bar....
Revision petitions under Section 115 are non-maintainable against orders passed under Section 96; appeal should be under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Point of law: Termination of contract - petitioner has failed to issue statutory notice under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 to defendant No.l and therefore plaint was ....
The main legal point established is the need to consider the implications of revisions and orders when deciding on remand, and the limitations and conditions for making a reference to the High Court ....
Point of Law : Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only.
The court affirmed that revisions under Section 115 are not maintainable unless errors cause irreparable harm or when a decisive resolution of a suit is involved.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
