Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi And Ors. vs Mohinder Kumar And Ors. on 20 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR558, 1998 A I H C 3028, (1999) 1 LANDLR 373, (1998) 120 PUN LR 558, (1998) 3 RECCIVR 1
JUDGMENT Arun B. Saharya, C.J.
1. In this revision-petition under Section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has challenged interlocutory order dated 08.02.1992, passed by Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Narnaul, in the course of Civil Suit No. 14 of 1987, dismissing the application of the petitioner-plain tiff for leading additional evidence under Order, 18 Rule 17-A, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Provision to sub-section (1) of Section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure, prohibits the High Court from varying or reversing any order 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."
3. The impugned order does not fulfil the requirement of clause (a); nor that of irreparable injury postulated in clause (b) of the provision. This brings us to the other ingredient of clause (b), namely, the litmus test of the question "whether the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice ?"
4. It is pertinent to note that the proviso was added to Sub-section 1 of Section 115 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 104 of 1976, as it was felt necessary that an overall restriction on the scope of application for revision against interlocutory orders should be imposed. Simultaneously, in such cases, in addition to the pre-existing provision in sub-section (1) of Section 105, provision was made for a right to challenge non-appealable interlocutory orders, whereupon any judgment is pronounced, in an appeal against the decree under the newly added Rule 1-A of Order 43 C.P.C. This was done to ensure continuous and expeditious trial and disposal of proceedings in suits by excluding unnecessary interference with interlocutory orders in revision, unless the same resulted in a judgment and decree against the concerned party, and giving to the aggrieved party a right only in an appeal against the decree to contend that such order should not have been made.
5. If at all, the petitioner fails in the suit and ultimately a judgment and decree is passed on the basis of the impugned order, he would be entitled to challenge it in appeal against the decree under Rule 1-A of Order 43 read with Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it cannot be said in the present case that the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice, so as to justify interference with it under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Without prejudice to the aforesaid right and remedy of the petitioner, the revision-petition is not maintainable. Consequently, it is dismissed. No costs.