NARESH KUMAR vs OM PRAKASH & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10.07.2025 + C.R.P. 150/2022 & CM APPL. 42291/2022 NARESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. L.B. Rai, Mr. Vineesh Tyagi & Mr. Rohit Kumar Poddar, Advocates. versus OM PRAKASH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yakchhandar Jain, Mr. Rajesh Jain & Ms. Annu Jain, Advocates for R-1 & 2 alongwith R-1 in person. 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 28.07.2022 passed by learned SCJ, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court and the Appeal filed against that that order has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the revision petition is maintainable because an appeal cannot be filed. 3. It is no longer res integra that the provisions of Section 115 of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:14.07.2025 C.R.P. 150/2022 Page 1 of 4 16:02:53 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,