SIDDHARTH TALWAR & ANR vs TALWAR JEWELLERS & ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 + C.R.P. 147/2019 SIDDHARTH TALWAR & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Atul Sahi, Advocate. versus TALWAR JEWELLERS & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aakash Sachdeva and Mrs. Nutan Sinha, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM APPL. 31389/2019 [Delay in filing the Petition] 1. This is an Application seeking condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the present Petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that he has no objection if the prayers in the present Application are allowed and the delay is condoned. 3. The delay is accordingly condoned and the Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 147/2019 4. 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 24.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI C.R.P. 147/2019 Page 1 of 4 NARAYAN Signing Date:30.05.2025 20:34:15 District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the opportunity to Defendant Nos.2 and 3, i.e., Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to file a written statement was closed. 5. A challenge has been raised to the maintainability of this Petition. 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 i