OM PRAKASH KAITH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. vs CHETAN HANDA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 + C.R.P. 308/2024 & CM Appl.62661/2024 OM PRAKASH KAITH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. …Petitioners Through: Mr. Shubham Gupta, Ms. Prerna Gupta and Mr. Preveen Gupta, Advs. versus CHETAN HANDA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Rachita Garg and Mr. Agam Rajput, Advs. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] impugning the award dated 02.04.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Additional District Judge-01, South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. 1.1 By the Impugned Order, learned Trial Court has disregarded the evidence of two witnesses which were to be examined by the Petitioner/ Plaintiff. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.05.2025 C.R.P. 308/2024 Page 1 of 3 13:12:29 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 m