RANBIR SARAN DAS vs SANDEEP KUMAR & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28.07.2025 + C.R.P. 71/2025 & CM APPL. 13779/2025 RANBIR SARAN DAS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohan Gupta and Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocates. versus SANDEEP KUMAR & ANR. .....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 25.01.2025 passed by learned District Judge- 01, East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC filed by the Petitioner/Defendant No.2 has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 71/2025 Page 1 of 3 By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:30.07.2025 16:20:27 (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 order in the case as it thinks fit: Provided that the High