TATA CAPITAL LIMITED vs KRISHAN KUMAR GARG & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 04.09.2025 + C.R.P. 253/2025 & CM APPL. 55966-55968/2025 TATA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Pathak, Adv. versus KRISHAN KUMAR GARG & ANR. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. 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 16.04.2024 passed by learned District Judge- 01, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. 2. After some arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is not aggrieved by the Order under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC per se however he is aggrieved by the finding of the learned Trial Court which has closed its right to file written statement. Learned Counsel seeks to rely upon paragraph 36 of the Impugned Order in this behalf. 3. Concededly, such a challenge cannot be adjudicated under the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court. 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: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.09.2025 C.R.P. 253/2025 Page 1 of 3 15:10:59 “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