Delhi High Court - Orders
Harsh Bajaj vs Santosh Khandelwal on 28 July, 2025
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. 213/2025 & CM APPL. 44132-44134/2025
HARSH BAJAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vasu Bhushan and Mr. Ashish
Upadhyay, Advs.
versus
SANTOSH KHANDELWAL .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 28.07.2025
1. The present Petition has been listed on being transferred after being "converted" by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, on the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the appropriate remedy is to file a revision petition before the High Court.
2. The attention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is drawn to the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"], more specifically the proviso thereto, which provides that unless the order in issue is such an order which would finally decide the lis between the parties, the challenge under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable.
3. It is no longer res integra that the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC cannot be invoked except where an order, if made in favour of the revisionist, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings. This is set out in the proviso to Section 115 of the CPC below:
"Section 115 - Revision The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2025 at 21:49:38
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
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."
[Emphasis Supplied] 3.1 The Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 659 has held that unless the order if given in favour of the party applying for the revision would have given finality to the suit or other proceeding, a revision is not maintainable. The relevant extract of the Shiv Shakti case is set out below:
"32. A plain reading of Section 115 as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is "yes" then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is "no" then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. The legislative intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject-matter of revision under Section 115. There is marked distinction in the language of Section 97(3) of the Old Amendment Act and Section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act. While in the former, there was a clear legislative intent to save applications admitted or pending before the amendment came into force. Such an intent is significantly absent in Section 32(2)(i). The amendment relates to procedures. No person has a vested right in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a statutory change the mode of procedure is altered, the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception, unless there is a different stipulation."
[Emphasis Supplied] This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2025 at 21:49:38 3.2 In the case of Gayatri Devi v. Shashi Pal Singh; (2005) 5 SCC 527, the Supreme Court while relying on the Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society case has held that an order interim in nature or which does not finally decide the lis, cannot be challenged by way of a revision under Section 115 CPC.
"14. In the first place, it appears to us that the revision petition before the High Court was wholly incompetent in view of the amended provision of Section 115 CPC. The revision petition was entertained at the stage of interlocutory proceedings. As laid down by this Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers [(2003) 6 SCC 659] an order interim in nature or which does not finally decide the lis, cannot be challenged by way of a revision under Section 115 CPC."
[Emphasis Supplied]
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that the order under challenge is an order dismissing an Application filed in a Petition under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the Petitioner/tenant, wherein an application under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 of the CPC for discovery/interrogatories was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
5. In view of the proviso to Section 115 of the CPC, a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,1950 would be maintainable against the order that is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
6. Accordingly, list on 12.08.2025, before the Roster Bench, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
7. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J JULY 28, 2025/ ha/r This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2025 at 21:49:38