SURENDER SODHI vs MS DOLPHIN MART LTD AND ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 + C.R.P. 239/2023 & CM Appls.45198-99/2023 SURENDER SODHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Shankar, Adv. versus MS DOLPHIN MART LTD AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. 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 01.12.2021 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned District Judge-07, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, learned Trial Court had closed the right to lead the evidence of the Petitioner/Defendant, on account of the failure to take any steps to lead evidence since 31.03.2021. 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 decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:28.05.2025 C.R.P. 239/2023 Page 1 of 3 13:14:10 (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 thinks f