SMT RAM KALI vs SMT MADHU

Judgment text excerpt

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 + C.R.P. 361/2024 SMT RAM KALI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Devendra Kumar, Adv. versus SMT MADHU .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. This Court had vide order dated 17.09.2025 directed as follows:- "3. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to challenge an Order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-03, Rohini Courts, North District, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] in the matter captioned as Madhu v. Ram Kali. By the impugned Order, the Order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in 29 CS SCG 498/21 captioned Ram Kali v. Madhu has been stayed till the final disposal of the present Petition. 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, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:24.09.2025 C.R.P. 361/2024 Page 1 of 3 18:50:06 (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make suc