ABHISHEK AGGARWAL vs INDRAWATI AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23.07.2025 + C.R.P. 380/2023 ABHISHEK AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Tanwar and Mr. Shiv Kumar Tanwar, Advocates. versus INDRAWATI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Bijay Kumar, Advocate for R-1 to 4. Mr. JPN Shahi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] seeking to challenge the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-02, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order the Application under Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC for recalling and summoning of witnesses has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court and the matter has been fixed for final arguments. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petition is not maintainable in view of the proviso of Section 115, CPC. In terms of the proviso unless the lis is finally decided by the Court, the revisionary Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 380/2023 Page 1 of 4 By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:25.07.2025 22:25:00 jurisdiction of the Court cannot be entertained. 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 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 a