Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India serve different purposes within the legal framework.

Key Differences:

1. Nature of Jurisdiction:
2. Section 115 CPC: This section provides for the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court over subordinate courts. It allows the High Court to call for the records of any case decided by a subordinate court and to revise any order that is found to be contrary to law or has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

3. Article 227 of the Constitution: This article empowers the High Court to supervise and control the functioning of all subordinate courts within its jurisdiction. It is broader in scope, allowing the High Court to ensure that the subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction and follow the principles of natural justice.

4. Scope of Review:

5. Section 115 CPC: The review is limited to cases where there is an error of jurisdiction, and it does not allow for a re-evaluation of evidence or facts. The focus is primarily on legal errors.

6. Article 227: This provision allows for a more comprehensive supervisory role, where the High Court can intervene not only on legal grounds but also to ensure that justice is served, even if the subordinate court''s decision is not strictly erroneous in law.

7. Grounds for Invocation:

8. Section 115 CPC: Grounds for revision are specifically enumerated, such as the exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the court or failure to exercise jurisdiction.
9. Article 227: The grounds for invoking this article are not strictly defined, allowing for a more flexible approach to judicial oversight.

Key Legal Arguments:

• For Section 115 CPC:
• It provides a structured mechanism for correcting specific legal errors made by subordinate courts.

• It ensures that the High Court''s intervention is limited to significant legal issues, promoting judicial efficiency.

• For Article 227:

• It allows the High Court to intervene in cases where justice is at stake, even if the subordinate court''s decision is not legally flawed.
• It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary or unjust decisions by lower courts, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Counter Arguments:

• Prosecuting Lawyer (for Section 115):
• The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 is essential to maintain the integrity of the legal process by correcting specific legal errors without overstepping the boundaries of judicial authority.

• Article 227 could lead to excessive interference by the High Court, undermining the independence of subordinate courts and creating a backlog of cases.

• Defense Lawyer (for Article 227):

• The broader supervisory powers under Article 227 are necessary to prevent injustice and ensure that all litigants receive fair treatment, regardless of the technicalities of legal errors.
• Relying solely on Section 115 may allow for unjust outcomes to persist if they do not meet the strict criteria for revision, whereas Article 227 provides a more holistic approach to justice.