1. Suit captioned Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh & anr Vs. Samandar Thokar & ors is pending before the Court of Sub Judge, Handwara. During the course of proceedings, two applications came to be filed on behalf of petitioners (defendants), one seeking leave of the Court to file list of witnesses and depositing diet expenses and second seeking permission for production of agreement and affidavit dated 25.5.1992 and 29.5.2007 respectively.

2. Trial court after considering both the applications has allowed one application where-under list of witnesses has been permitted to be filed and has also permitted deposit of the diet expenses whereas application for production of documents has been dismissed. Dissatisfied therewith, instant revision petition has been filed.

3. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to justify maintainability of the revision petition as the bar contained in Proviso to Section 115 CPC does not permit entertaining the revision petitions against the orders which do not have the effect of terminating the suit proceedings.

4. Learned counsel, Mr. Sofi, with all efforts tried to convince that the expression "or other proceedings" as appear in the Proviso would take into its sweep disposal of all applications during the course of the suit. Buttressing this submission tried to take benefit of various judgments but those judgments are not of any help to him. In the said judgments expression "other proceedings" as appear in the Proviso has not been interpreted.

5. If submission projected by learned counsel for the petitioners is taken correct, then the object of amendment will be rendered otiose. The Proviso to Section 115 CPC has been substituted and by virtue of that substitution in effect earlier clause (b) to the Proviso has been omitted. The powers exercis-able under Section 115 CPC have been drastically curtailed with the object of avoiding protraction in the trial of suits. It shall be quite advantageous to reproduce unamended as well as amended Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC:

"Unamended Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC:

"Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section vary or reverse any order made, or an order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where-

(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or

(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of Justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

"Amended Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC:

"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,"

6. What will emerge from the careful reading of the proviso is that the revisional power has to be exercised only in respect of the orders which are final or the orders which if would have been passed in favour of the party applying for the revision would result in termination of the suit or other proceedings independent of the suit i.e. which may have trappings of the suit.

7. The words employed i.e. "or other proceedings" are in the context of the proceedings as may be commenced under the provisions of Succession Certificate Act, Guardians & Wards Act, Hindu Marriage Act and like proceedings but not the proceedings as may arise during the trial of the suit. It shall be quite advantageous to quote para 4 of the judgment captioned Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 675:

"4. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended-, does not now permit a revision petition being filed against an order disposing of an appeal against the order of the trial court whether confirming, reversing or modifying th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document