ANIL KUMAR & ANR. vs DEVENDER KUMAR GARG @ DAVINDER KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.08.2025 + C.R.P. 232/2025 & CM Appl. 48367/2025, 48369/2025 ANIL KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sarvesh Singh and Mr. Deepak Chand, Advs. with Petitioner No. 1 in person. versus DEVENDER KUMAR GARG @ DAVINDER KUMAR .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM Appl. 48368/2025[Exemption from filing certified copies] 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 232/2025 3. 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 27.01.2025 passed by learned District Judge- 01, District North, East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] in an Application filed by the Petitioners under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and another order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court challenging a Review Petition filed against the order dated 27.01.2025. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:08.08.2025 C.R.P. 232/2025 Page 1 of 4 20:07:43 4. Concededly, both the orders are interim in nature and are not of the nature where if they would have been decided in favour of the party, the suit would have been finally disposed of. 5. 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, 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 ca