PURAN KUMAR CHUG AND ANR vs RAGHBIR SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.08.2025 + C.R.P. 381/2024 PURAN KUMAR CHUG AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: None. versus RAGHBIR SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND ORS .....Respondents Through: None. 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 11.11.2024 passed by learned District Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC has been allowed. 2. Concededly, the Application that has been allowed for impleading a party to the suit is not amenable to revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. 3. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:11.08.2025 C.R.P. 381/2024 Page 1 of 3 14:50:15 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