ASHUTOSH KUMAR vs AMRENDRA KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23.07.2025 + C.R.P. 26/2025 & CM APPL. 5481/2025 ASHUTOSH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jogeshwar Gupta, Proxy Counsel. versus AMRENDRA KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vijay Mishra, Advocate. 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 07.09.2024 passed by learned District Judge, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff has been allowed by the learned Trial Court. It is this order that has been challenged by the Petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:26.07.2025 C.R.P. 26/2025 Page 1 of 3 06:08:45 115 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 (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with mater