Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Revision is generally maintainable against orders amounting to a case decided (including partial decisions or jurisdictional errors), but not against interlocutory orders in undecided suits; non-merits dismissals (e.g., default) limit revision scope, favoring restoration/appeal instead. Suits must typically be decided for revision, though not always on merits ["Jagdish Prasad VS State Of U. P. Thru. The Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. - Allahabad"] ["BAI GALAL RAMSHI W/o. KOLI RAJA SURA VS VRAJLAL ICHHASHANKER - Gujarat"] ["Abhiraj Singh VS Addl. Commissioner Agra - Allahabad"] ["Seeta Gupta VS Additional District Judge - Allahabad"].
In civil litigation, parties often face orders that halt proceedings without a full trial on the merits. A common question arises: a suit which is not decided on merit then it can be challenged through revision? This query touches on the nuanced scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Understanding when revision is maintainable can be crucial for preserving rights and avoiding procedural pitfalls.
This post breaks down the legal framework, key conditions, limitations, and real-world examples. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Revision under Section 115 CPC empowers High Courts to supervise subordinate courts, correcting jurisdictional errors or material irregularities. It applies when:- The subordinate court exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.- No appeal lies against the order.- The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury.
Post-amendment, the explanation to Section 115(2) broadens case decided to include any order made in the course of a suit or other proceeding. This shift allows revision for certain non-final orders in ongoing suits, overriding narrower pre-amendment views requiring decree-like finality. Awadh Kishore Singh VS Brij Bihari Singh - 1993 0 Supreme(Pat) 110
Yes, revision may lie against orders in suits not decided on merits, but only if they qualify as a case decided and meet strict criteria. For instance:- Procedural refusals causing injustice: A trial court's refusal to examine a defendant due to no written statement order was revisable. The court noted: the order suffers from jurisdictional error and if the same is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice and cause irreparable injury. Awadh Kishore Singh VS Brij Bihari Singh - 1993 0 Supreme(Pat) 110- Orders under Section 10 CPC: Staying a suit qualifies as a case decided. An order under Section 10 of the Code amounts to 'a case decided' for the purpose of exercising revisional jurisdiction. RAM DASS VS SUBHASH BAKSHI - 1975 0 Supreme(HP) 3
Three conditions must align:1. Jurisdictional error or material irregularity under Section 115(1).2. No appeal available.3. Order finally disposes of the suit or risks failure of justice/irreparable injury. Awadh Kishore Singh VS Brij Bihari Singh - 1993 0 Supreme(Pat) 110
Not all non-merits orders are revisable. Key barriers include:- Decree-like orders: Dismissals on preliminary grounds (e.g., res judicata, lack of cause of action) are decrees under Section 2(2) CPC, appealable under Section 96. Instant composite order passed on rejection of plaint for lack of cause of action and dismissal of suit as not maintainable on ground of res judicata – Both constitute a decree u/s 2(2) – Remedy is only appeal u/s 96 and not revision u/s 115. Rishabh Chand Jain VS Ginesh Chandra Jain - 2016 3 Supreme 196 The focus is on effect: What is important is effect and not the process. Rishabh Chand Jain VS Ginesh Chandra Jain - 2016 3 Supreme 196- Purely interim/interlocutory orders: Those not finally deciding the lis cannot be challenged. An order interim in nature or which did not finally decide the lis could not be challenged by way of revision under Section 115 CPC. Gayatri Devi VS Shashi Pal Singh - 2005 3 Supreme 1
In execution or pending suits, revisions against stays or objections are often barred as interlocutory. Gayatri Devi VS Shashi Pal Singh - 2005 3 Supreme 1
Other precedents illustrate boundaries:- Status quo orders: Courts upheld maintaining status quo till suit disposal, dismissing revision for lack of prejudice. Courts must preserve the properties in their existing state during pendency, preventing potential harm or changes by any party. Mohammad Siddique and another vs Sk. Mansur (dead) and another - 2025 Supreme(Ori) 911- Interlocutory orders in execution: A single revision against multiple prejudicial orders is maintainable with the final order. Interlocutory orders prejudicial to a party can be challenged in a single revision along with the final order. Ishwar Sharan alias Ishwar Sharan Das (dead) VS Bharat Kumar - 2023 Supreme(All) 1846- Rejection of plaint in revision: No appeal lies against revisional rejection; remedy is writ under Article 227. Deputy Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation VS Ward Memorial Church School - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1351- Specific contexts: In Specific Relief Act Section 6 suits (dispossession without title), revision is exceptional; primary remedy is title suit. Sanjay Kumar Pandey And Ors VS Gulbahar Sheikh - 2004 3 Supreme 205
These cases reinforce that revision targets supervisory errors, not merits, and requires no alternative remedy. RAM DASS VS SUBHASH BAKSHI - 1975 0 Supreme(HP) 3
Supervisory jurisdiction avoids merits review, focusing on jurisdictional plane. RAM DASS VS SUBHASH BAKSHI - 1975 0 Supreme(HP) 3
To pursue revision:- Confirm non-appealability and case decided status per explanation.- Prove jurisdictional/material irregularity risking justice/injury (e.g., barring evidence).- File promptly in High Court.- Prefer appeal for decree-like orders; consider Article 227 writs for others. Deputy Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation VS Ward Memorial Church School - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1351
For long-pending suits, courts urge expedition, dismissing dilatory tactics. Bachai Pandey VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 2279
Navigating CPC remedies demands precision. Stay informed, act swiftly, and protect your litigation rights effectively.
#CPCRevision, #Section115CPC, #CivilLawIndia
Therefore, mere pendency of a civil suit between the parties would not make a writ petition, wherein challenge has been laid to the attestation of mutation or setting aside of orders of mutation, not maintainable. The contention of the appellant is, therefore, without merit. ... the writ petition, in view of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties, is not maintainable. ... The other ground that has been urged by the appellant is that the writ petition is not#HL_END....
Since this revisional application preferred against the judgment of affirmance we need to scrutinize the merit of the revision. ... Both the courts below rightly held that in earlier Other Suit No. 04 of 2001 present plaintiffs in suit were not necessary party as they are not of 2001 which was for a decree of partition, a person not The defendants in that suit and plaintiffs in present suit did not move before the....
suit may amount to a case decided, though the suit has not been decided, and revision is maintainable against the said order. ... Accordingly, he submits that as the rejection of application of amendment in the plaint does not bring the suit to an end, thus, the suit being not decided, the order rejecting the amendment application would not fall within the ambit of case #HL_START....
Therefore, there is no merit in this revision filed by the petitioners. The same must fail. 12. In result, the revision filed by the petitioners is dismissed on merit. ... To which, the defendants (petitioners in this revision) objected denying the allegations alleged by the plaintiffs against them stating therein that, the plaintiff was/is not using the ‘Kha’ schedule suit land as passage and he (plaintiff) has other way to reach on the main road ... Madhava Balaji....
The objectors were not the party to the civil suit and in fact, specific stand before learned Executing Court was also to the effect that as they were in possession of the suit land, therefore, the decree was not executable as neither they nor their predecessor-in-interest were party in the civil suit ... The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that because it was not a judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court but was an order, therefore, the #HL_S....
Hence, the revision was maintainable which should have been decided on merit but in this case it is not so. ... For maintainability of a revision, there must be a decision of any suit or proceeding. Here no suit or proceeding has been finally decided. The suit under Section 229 B is still pending and even by the impugned order it was not decided. ... Now the petitioner has come to this Court and h....
No. 1398 of 1962 decided by the Supreme Court on 5-4-1963 (SC) the Supreme Court did not decide whether one petition impugning two or mote assessment orders could validity be filed or not; all that it decided was that when one petition was filed one appeal arose out of the order and not two or more appeals ... The suit shall proceed and to be decided on merits, expeditiously. 4. He submits that the objection raised is no more than a technicality or something to do wit....
The Trial Court refused to reject the plaint and the revisional court allowed the revision petition and rejected the plaint. The decision of the revisional court was challenged in the High Court by way of a revision. ... The said order of the Appeal Court was challenged before this Court by a civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. ... The defendants challenged the said order by filing a civil revision being C.R. No. 49 of 2003. The learned A....
not by a separate suit. ... (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. Explanation. ... The jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside the order in exercise of the power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is challenged by Khanna on three grounds: (i) that the order did not amount to "a case which has been deci....
It has been argued that the award of Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by filing a civil suit. ... The another important aspect of the case is that she was not a party in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 which was decided by Lok Adalat on 13-12-2014. In those circumstances, she filed civil suit claiming declaration of title, possession, injunction and mesne profit. ... The civil revision is dismissed accordingly. ... Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 which was #HL_STA....
1987 by Board of Revenue. The restoration application filed by the petitioner was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 08.08.1989. The second restoration application filed by petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.01.991. The third restoration application was filed by petitioner with delay of 15 years on 13.09.2006 which was dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.02.2007 on the ground of limitation. The review filed by petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 30.10. 2. The brief facts of the case are that suit under Section 229B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act h....
Since the criminal revision can not be dismissed in default, hence this revision is being decided on merit.
Hence, I have heard arguments of learned AGA for the State. The revision is being decided on merit after going through the record.
Since it is claim of the petitioners that the property has been purchased by the joint family fund, she is necessary party to the suit. In such a situation, the claim of the petitioners that the wife of the plaintiff is necessary party is justified. It is another I thing that the suit will be decided on merit for which this court is presently not concerned.
The defendant has no right to say that he can keep any arrow in his pocket for using it at any stage of suit or subsequent thereto. A defect which can be cured and if objection is not raised at earliest opportunity then the suit cannot be dismissed. In a case where issues framed and the issue makes the point clear in the mind of the defendant about the allegations against him and the basic foundation and facts for seeking relief by the plaintiff , then the defendant cannot raise objection about the lack of pleading because issue makes the things and the position clear.
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
