HEMA SEHGAL vs YOGENDER KUMAR AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 + C.R.P. 160/2025 & CM Appl.32688/2025 HEMA SEHGAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hari Prakash, Adv. versus YOGENDER KUMAR AND ANR .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM Appl.32687/2025[Exemption from filing certified copies] 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 160/2025 & CM Appl.32688/2025[Exemption] 3. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] impugning the order dated 23.04.2025 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned District Judge-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order XLVII read with Section 151 of the CPC as well as an Application under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner/Defendant have been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 4. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:28.05.2025 C.R.P. 160/2025 Page 1 of 4 13:07:12 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