Amended revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC applies to pending revisions and narrows interlocutory challenges.

The amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure curtailed revisional jurisdiction by retaining only the requirement that the impugned order, if decided in favour of the applicant, would finally dispose of the suit or proceeding. The earlier basis of failure of justice or irreparable injury was omitted, and revisions against interlocutory orders were therefore confined to this narrow test. A revision under Section 115 is a statutory supervisory remedy, not a vested substantive right, so the amendment applied to pending revision petitions. In the absence of a saving clause, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve them, and no casus omissus could be supplied by interpretation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to pending revision petitions and whether, after the amendment, revisions against interlocutory orders were maintainable only where the order, if made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.

Analysis: The amendment to Section 115 curtailed the High Court's revisional jurisdiction by retaining only the condition that the impugned order, if made in favour of the applicant, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding, while omitting the earlier ground based on failure of justice or irreparable injury. The right of appeal is a vested substantive right, but a revision under Section 115 is only a statutory supervisory power and not a vested right of the litigant. The amendment dealt with procedure, and in the absence of a saving clause for pending revision proceedings, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not preserve them. The language of the amended provision was plain and unambiguous, and no casus omissus could be supplied by interpretation.

Conclusion: The amended Section 115 applied to pending revisions, and revisions against interlocutory orders were not maintainable unless the order, if made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. The challenge to the High Court's view failed.

---