SATISH vs SUNITA MITTAL & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 09.07.2025 + C.R.P. 16/2025, CM APPL. 4173/2025 SATISH .....Petitioner Through: None. versus SUNITA MITTAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] seeking to challenge an order dated 02.12.2024 passed by Ld. District Judge-03, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, an Application filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the Respondents (Plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court) was allowed. 2. None appears for the parties. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:12.07.2025 C.R.P. 16/2025 Page 1 of 3 04:46:49 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 material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: Provided that the High Court shall not, under thi