AMIT KUMAR SINGHAL vs SHARAD KUMAR GUPTA

Judgment text excerpt

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 + C.R.P. 243/2025 & CM APPL. 52513-52515/2025 AMIT KUMAR SINGHAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abdesh Kumar Choudhary, Mr. Akshat Gupta, Mr. Geetanjali Setia & Mr. Sriram, Advocates. versus SHARAD KUMAR GUPTA .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] against the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by learned District Judge, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, a miscellaneous Application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by giving finding that if the document was crucial, the Petitioner/Plaintiff could have availed of the opportunity of summoning the record previously. 2. The maintainability of this Petition is a subject matter of challenge. 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, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:26.08.2025 C.R.P. 243/2025 Page 1 of 4 18:02:38 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 (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a juris