Section 115 CPC revisional power narrowed; interlocutory orders are reviewable only if they would finally dispose of proceedings.

The 1999 amendment to Section 115 CPC was treated as a deliberate restriction on revisional jurisdiction: a High Court may interfere with an interlocutory order only if, had the order gone the applicant's way, it would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. The expression "other proceeding" was held not to include interlocutory or supplemental steps within a suit. The Court also held that inherent powers cannot be used to bypass this express statutory bar. However, a revision under Section 115 may be converted into a petition under Article 227 in an appropriate case, and such conversion was permitted here.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the 1999 amendment to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction against interlocutory orders only when the impugned order, if made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding; (ii) whether the expression "other proceeding" in the proviso includes interlocutory or supplemental proceedings in a suit; (iii) whether the High Court can bypass the amended proviso by invoking inherent powers; and (iv) whether a revision under Section 115 could be converted into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether, after the 1999 amendment to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction against interlocutory orders only when the impugned order, if made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.

Analysis: The amended provision was read as a deliberate legislative restriction on revisional interference. The earlier wider ground permitting interference where an order caused failure of justice or irreparable injury was held to have been consciously removed. The Court treated the final-disposal requirement in the proviso as the controlling test for maintainability under Section 115.

Conclusion: The revisional power under Section 115 is confined to cases where the impugned order, if favourable to the applicant, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding.

Issue (ii): Whether the expression "other proceeding" in the proviso includes interlocutory or supplemental proceedings in a suit.

Analysis: The expression "in the course of a suit" was held sufficient to cover interlocutory orders passed in a suit, subject to the proviso. The phrase "other proceeding" was construed to mean proceedings distinct from a suit and not to enlarge revisional jurisdiction so as to defeat the amendment.

Conclusion: The expression "other proceeding" does not include interlocutory or supplemental proceedings in a suit.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court can bypass the amended proviso by invoking inherent powers.

Analysis: The Court held that inherent powers cannot be used to nullify an express statutory restriction. Where the legislature has imposed a clear limitation on revisional jurisdiction, the Court cannot resort to inherent power to overcome that bar.

Conclusion: The amended proviso cannot be ignored by invoking inherent powers.

Issue (iv): Whether a revision under Section 115 could be converted into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the forum and remedy are before the same High Court and that, in an appropriate case, conversion may be permitted in the interest of justice. The request for conversion was therefore allowed.

Conclusion: Conversion from Section 115 revision to a petition under Article 227 was permitted.

Final Conclusion: The revision was held to be not maintainable under Section 115 as framed, but the applicant was granted leave to proceed under Article 227, so the matter continued in the converted form.

Ratio Decidendi: After the 1999 amendment, revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure survives only where the impugned order, if made in favour of the applicant, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding, and the proviso cannot be circumvented by invoking inherent powers.

---