The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment to Section 115 CPC restricts the High Court's revisional powers to only those orders that would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings if made in favor of the party applying for revision.

1. Whether the Civil Revision in hand is maintainable in wake of amendment to Section 115 Civil Procedure Code Svt. 1977 incorporated by Amendment Act of 2009 is the question that calls for an answer.

2. The background facts are as under:-

The petitioners on 06.02.2009 commenced a suit for declaration, possession and injunction before 3rd Additional Munsiff, 1st Class, Jammu. The case set up was that the petitioners were owner in possession of land measuring 18 Kanals 16 Marlas comprising Survey No. 36 min, 40 min and 41 min, situated at Patel Nagar, Halqa Nowabad, Tehsil and District, Jammu, and that the defendants had forcibly occupied an area measuring 5 Kanals 09 Marlas comprising Survey No. 36 min, 40 min and 41 min, out of the said land. On the strength of the averments made in the plaint, the petitioners sought declaratory decree declaring the petitioners owners of the suit land, a decree of possession for the part of the suit land forcibly encroached upon by the respondents and also a permanent injunction decree, restraining the respondents from alienating or changing nature of area of suit land encroached upon by the respondents. Alongside the suit, the petitioners filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction. The trial Court dismissed the temporary injunction application and rejected prayer for grant of ad interim injunction. The petitioners questioned the trial Court order dated 25th July, 2009 in a Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal before Additional District Judge, Jammu. The appeal was held to be without any merit and accordingly dismissed on 27th September, 2010. The petitioners not satisfied with the order of the trial Court as also First Appellate Court, have come up with present Civil Revision and seek reversal of the impugned orders on the grounds urged therein.

3. The merits of the Civil Revision apart, preliminary objections is raised by counsel for the respondents as regards maintainability of the Civil Revision. It is contended that inconsequence of amendment to Section 115 Civil Procedure Code, restricting ambit and scope of the revisional powers of the High Court, Civil Revision is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as such.

4. Heard and considered.

5. The Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2009 (Act VI of 2009 dated 20.03.2009) is an omnibus amendment to Code of Civil Procedure and amongst its other provisions amends Section 115 that confers power on the High Court to call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court, and to vary or reverse such order, where the subordinate Court is found to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, or the order to have caused failure of justice.

6. The amendment substitutes proviso to Section 115 (1) CPC by the following:-

"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 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".

7. A closer look at the amended provision reveals that the amendment of 2009 restricts the supervisory powers of the High Court available under Section 115 CPC stand to a large extent. Before amendment of 2009, the High Court would exercise its revisional powers and vary or reverse any order made, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, even where the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. Section 115 (1) proviso (b), before amendment thus gave wide powers to the High Court to vary or reverse any order as said above, even where it did not involve erroneous assumption of jurisdiction, failure to exercise jurisdiction or exercise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document