SHRI GULAB SINGH vs M/S BHARAT TIMBER TRADERS & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~92 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 19.05.2025 + C.R.P. 1/2025 & CM APPL. 21490/2025 SHRI GULAB SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Jha, Advocate. versus M/S BHARAT TIMBER TRADERS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Mudgal, Advocate 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”] seeking to challenge an order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned DJ-02 (NW), Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an Application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC filed by the Petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 submits that the maintainability of this Petition is a subject matter of challenge. 3. 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, which is extracted 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 1/2025 Page 1 of 3 By:RAHUL Signing Date:23.05.2025 12:32:29 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 t