SUSHEEL SAXENA vs M/S I.C. TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17.07.2025 + C.R.P. 70/2023 & CM APPL. 13896/2023 SUSHEEL SAXENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ishan Jain, Advocate versus M/S I.C. TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Vibha Sharma, Mr. Lalit Kumar and Mr. Mukund Thakur, Advocates 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 13.12.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge-04, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order 1 Rule 10 was dismissed. 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 (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: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:18.07.2025 C.R.P. 70/2023 Page 1