Point of Law : Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only.

ORDER :

This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed to assail the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.7, Shimla, H.P. in CMA No.241/2018 in C.S. No.109-1 of 2014, whereby the application of the petitioner herein under Order 16 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner herein is defendant before the learned trial Court in C.S. No.109-1 of 2014. An application under Order 16 Rule 1 (3) read with Section 151 CPC came to be filed by the petitioner/defendant with a prayer to allow the witnesses to be summoned as per the list attached. The reason assigned in the application for invoking jurisdiction under Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC was that due to inadvertence list of witnesses could not be filed and hence the petitioner/defendant intended to summon the witnesses detailed in the list attached. The list of witnesses attached by the petitioner/defendant included the name of the counsel representing the plaintiff in the case. It was stated that the counsel for the plaintiff had given reply to a legal notice sent to the plaintiff by the defendant, therefore, the examination of counsel for the plaintiff was required.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

4. At the out-set, it is to be seen as to whether the instant petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable?

5. In Tek Singh vs. Shashi Verma and another, 2021 (1) HimL.R. (SC) 158, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“6). We are constrained to observe that every legal canon has been thrown to the winds by the impugned judgment. First and foremost, the 1999 amendment to the CPC added a proviso Section 115 which reads as follows:

“115. Revision-(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

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, 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 other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.

2. Xxx xxx xxx

(3) A 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. A reading of this proviso will show that, after 1999, revision petitions filed under Section 115 CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders.

(7) Even otherwise, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only. This is well settled. In D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. Sarup Singh and Others, (1970) 2 SCR 368 this Court held:

“The position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by the Hig