SIMRAN & ORS. vs PRABHJOT SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 + C.R.P. 164/2025 & CM Appl. 33498/2025 SIMRAN & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vinay Rathi and Mr. Vikrant Dhama, Advs. versus PRABHJOT SINGH .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM Appl. 33499/2025[Exemption from filing certified copies] 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 164/2025 & CM Appl. 33498/2025[Stay] 3. 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 17.03.2025 passed by learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Section 151 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner/Defendant has 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 be invoked except where an order, if made in favour of the revisionist, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:28.05.2025 C.R.P. 164/2025 Page 1 of 4 12:58:24 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 o