SMT. SHEELA DEVI THROUGH ITS SPA HOLDER SMT. SUNITA DEVI vs MR FARUK

Judgment text excerpt

$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 28.04.2025 + C.R.P. 125/2025 & CM Appls.24995-96/2025 SMT. SHEELA DEVI THROUGH ITS SPA HOLDER SMT. SUNITA DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Adv. versus MR FARUK .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the order dated 11.02.2025 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ADJ-03, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC has been dismissed in view of the fact that the Application is totally silent upon the criteria laid down under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. 2. The attention of learned Counsel for the Appellant is drawn to Section 115 of the CPC which reads as follows: “[(1)] 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 (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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:30.04.2025 C.R.P. 125/2025 Page 1 of 3 19:21:07 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 wou