Concept of Revision under CPC

INTRODUCTION

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals about Revision.

The Higher Courts have revision jurisdiction and can call for the record of any case which is already decided. This power is given for the efficient exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of Higher Courts. The High Court may decide to revise any decisions taken by the lower courts under certain circumstances. CPC, u/s 115, empowers the High Court to entertain revision in any case decided in a subordinate Court.

MEANING

According to the dictionary meaning, “to revise” means “to look again or repeatedly at”; “to go through carefully and correct where necessary”, “to look over with a view to improving or correcting”. “Revision” means “the action of revising, especially critical or careful examination or perusal with a view to correcting or improving”

OBJECT

The underlying object of Section 115 is to prevent subordinate courts from acting arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally or irregularly in the exercise of their jurisdiction. It clothes the High Court with the powers to see that the proceedings of the subordinate courts are conducted in accordance with law within the bounds of their jurisdiction and in furtherance of justice. It enables the High Court to correct, when necessary, errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate courts and provides the means to an aggrieved party to obtain rectification of a non-appealable order. In other words, for the effective exercise of its superintending and visitorial powers, revisional jurisdiction is conferred upon the High Court.At the same time, however, the judges of the lower courts have perfect jurisdiction to decide a case, and even if they decide wrongly, they do not commit “jurisdictional error”. Revisional jurisdiction is not intended.

NATURE AND SCOPE:

Section 115 authorises the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters:

that the order of the subordinate court is within jurisdiction.
that the case is one in which the court ought to exercise its jurisdiction; and
that in exercising jurisdiction the court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision.

If the High Court is satisfied with these three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate court on questions of fact or of law. It is well established that where there is no question of jurisdiction the decision cannot be corrected for a court has jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly.

In Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon AIR 1964 SC 497 , It was held, “The section consists of two parts, the first prescribes the conditions in which jurisdiction of the High Court arises, i.e. there is a case decided by a subordinate court in which no appeal lies to the High Court, the second sets out the circumstances in which the jurisdiction may be exercised.”

SECTION 115: Sec. 115 lays down:

The High Court may call for the record of “any case which has been decided” by any court subordinate to it and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears-
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, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:

Provided that the High Court shall not vary/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 proceeding, or
the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.]
The High Court shall not vary/reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.
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 – In this section, the expression “any case which has been decided” includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.

It may be noted that by the 1999 Amendment, Cl. (b) of the proviso to Sec. 115 has been deleted viz. the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. The effect would be to bar High Court’s interference in revision against interlocutory orders, even when there is a failure of justice, etc. The High Court’s ample power to interfere with the orders of the lower court for the ends of justice has thus been curtailed. The provision that revision shall not operate as a stay of suit has also been inserted by the said amendment.

A Single Judge of the High Court cannot be said to be a court subordinate to the High Court. Hence, no revision lies against an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court.

In accordance with the provisions of Sec. 115, it is necessary to establish three conditions for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction –

Order impugned amounts to be a “case decided.”
Order impugned is not directly liable to be challenged by way of appeal.
Order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error.

Analysis of section 115

Exercise of jurisdiction not vested by law [Clause (a)] – Cases of unauthorized assumption of jurisdiction by the subordinate court includes:

Where the lower court assumes jurisdiction which it does not possess on account of the pecuniary or territorial limits or by reason of the subject-matter of the suit;
Entertains an appeal from an order which is not appealable;
Entertains a suit or appeal which it has no jurisdiction to entertain;
Makes an order which it has no jurisdiction to make;
Grants an injunction without considering whether a prima facie case is made out; or
Directs a subordinate court to try a suit not triable by it; etc.

Failure to exercise jurisdiction [Clause (b)] – A revision also lies where a subordinate court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law.

For instance:

Refusal to entertain or rejection of a plaint, application, memorandum of appeal or review application on the erroneous view that it has no jurisdiction to entertain;
Refusal to make a reference under O. 46, R.7;
In erroneous interpretation of statutory provisions as obligatory instead of directory;
Failure of the executing court to construe the decree;
Refusal by the court to summon the deponent of an affidavit for cross-examination; etc.

So As per the section 115 Code of Civil Procedure following conditions are to be satisfied:

There must be a case decided
The Court deciding the case must be subordinate to High Court .
Order passed is non appealable 4. In deciding the case, subordinate Court must appear to have:
- Exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law
- Failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested.
- Acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

Discretionary Power:

The jurisdiction under Sec. 115 is a discretionary one. It is limited in scope and covers only jurisdictional errors. Further, restrictions have also been placed in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction and even where the conditions for the exercise of the revisional power are fulfilled the court in exercise of its discretion in a judicial manner may still refuse to interfere (Kanhaiyalal v Avantika Pustak Bhandar AIR 1990 M.P. 207). An applicant invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court must, therefore, show not only that there is a jurisdictional error but also that the interests of justice call for interference.

Under Sec. 115, the High Court can call for the record of the case suo motu (on its own motion) and revise the same; thus, if the case is not presented by a duly authorized person and the court finds that the impugned order falls within the purview of Sec. 115, it can Suo motu revise it.

Case Laws:

SHIV SHAKTI COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY v M/S. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR [(2003) 6 SCC 659]:

In this case, an important question of law involving effect of amendment in Sec. 115 of CPC, 1908 is involved. A comparison of the two provisions (i.e. before amendment, and after amendment) shows that proviso (a) of unamended provision has been retained in its totality, in the amended provisions clause (b) of the proviso has been omitted.

It is interesting to note that the Law Commission of India had recommended deletion of Sec. 115. In its opinion, the provisions of Sec. 115 are analogous to provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and the litigants would not be prejudiced in any way if the entire section were deleted. The Joint Committee of Parliament discussed these recommendations and only thought it proper to make certain modifications in the section. That led to amendment of Sec. 115.

Sec. 115 is essentially a source of power for a High court to supervise the subordinate courts. It does not in any way confer a right on a litigant aggrieved by any order of the subordinate court to approach the High Court for relief.

Sub-section (2) of Sec. 115 has remained unaltered even after the amendment and a new sub-section (3) has been added, which states that revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the court except where such suit or proceeding is stayed by High Court. A plain reading of Sec. 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 of interim in nature or does not finally decide the dispute, the revision will not be maintainable. The legislature intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject matter of revision under Sec. 115. It is well settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous.

S.S. Khanna v F.J. Dhillon : Order to which No Appeal Lies

Sec. 115 applies to cases in which no appeal lies. If an appeal lies against the decision directly or indirectly to the High Court, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised. But where the decision itself is not appealable to the High Court directly or indirectly, exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court would not be deemed excluded.