ALPRO INDUSTRIES AND ANR vs INDO ALUSIS INDUSTRIES LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17.07.2025 + C.R.P. 329/2024, CM APPL. 66119/2024 ALPRO INDUSTRIES AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Archana Sharma, Mr. T.S Varun, Ms. Pooja Kumari and Mr. Deven Varun, Advocates versus INDO ALUSIS INDUSTRIES LTD .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. This Court had on 16.07.2025 passed the following directions: “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 18.07.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge-04, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, learned Trial Court dismissed the Application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC filed by the Petitioners [Defendant before learned Trial Court] for filing additional documents. 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, 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 jurisdiction so vested, or Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:18.07.2025 C.R.P. 329/2024 Page 1 of 3 18:20:47 (c) to have a