Revisional interference and counsel boycott: interlocutory revision is limited, and court proceedings cannot be stalled by boycott calls.

Revisional interference against an interlocutory order is limited by the proviso to Section 115 CPC: it is available only where the impugned order, if made in the applicant's favour, would finally dispose of the suit, or where letting it stand would cause failure of justice or irreparable injury. The text states that these conditions were not satisfied, so revisional jurisdiction was unavailable. It also explains that a boycott by counsel does not justify staying judicial proceedings or seeking transfer of the case; an advocate must appear or properly withdraw, and parties cannot secure a different forum by mutual consent to avoid the seized court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could entertain revision against an interlocutory order in view of the proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether a case could be transferred or judicial proceedings stayed merely because counsel chose to boycott the court.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could entertain revision against an interlocutory order in view of the proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 115 restricts interference with orders made in the course of a suit unless the impugned order, if made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit, or unless allowing it to stand would cause failure of justice or irreparable injury. The order under challenge was not one which could finally dispose of the suit, and the record did not show any failure of justice or irreparable injury. The order of the trial court was a consequence of counsel's deliberate abstention and not a jurisdictional or procedural wrong warranting revisional interference.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order of 21.5.1998.

Issue (ii): Whether a case could be transferred or judicial proceedings stayed merely because counsel chose to boycott the court.

Analysis: Boycott by advocates cannot control or suspend judicial function. An advocate who has accepted a brief must either appear or properly disengage, and a court is under no obligation to adjourn or avoid proceedings because of a boycott call. The court also rejected the plea for transfer, holding that no valid ground existed merely because both sides did not object to a change of court. Parties cannot secure a court of their choice by mutual agreement to avoid the court seized of the matter.

Conclusion: The request for transfer was rejected, and the trial court was directed to proceed according to law.

Final Conclusion: The revisional proceedings were quashed, no transfer of the suit was ordered, and the trial court was directed to continue with the matter in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is barred against interlocutory orders unless the statutory conditions in the proviso are satisfied, and no litigant can obtain transfer or adjournment of judicial proceedings merely because counsel chooses to boycott the court.

---