2003 (2) TMI 526 - HC - Indian Laws

Limitation of Court's Revisional Powers: Section 115 CPC vs. Article 227 Constitution

Mrityunjay Sen Versus Sikha Sen

The court held that the revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable as the impugned order did not finally ... - Issues Involved:1. Scope of the power of revision of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999.2. Maintainability of civil revision cases in view of the amendment.3. Interpretation of the term 'other proceeding' in Section 115.4. Application of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. Conversion of a revisional application into an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.Detailed Analysis:1. Scope of Power of Revision under Section 115:The primary issue addressed was the scope of the High Court's power of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the 1999 Act. The court noted that the legislative history of Section 115 indicates that the intent was to curtail the High Court's revisional powers to expedite the disposal of cases and avoid delays caused by frequent revision applications against interlocutory orders. The court emphasized that the amended section restricts the High Court's power to interfere only in cases where the order, if made in favor of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.2. Maintainability of Civil Revision Cases:The court examined whether the High Court retains the power to entertain revisional applications against interlocutory orders post-amendment. It was argued that the term 'any case which has been decided' includes interlocutory orders. However, the court concluded that the amendment imposes significant restrictions, and the High Court can only exercise its revisional jurisdiction if the impugned order would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding if made in favor of the applicant.3. Interpretation of 'Other Proceeding':The term 'other proceeding' was scrutinized to determine whether it includes interlocutory proceedings. The court held that the expression 'in the course of a suit' already covers interlocutory orders. The term 'other proceeding' refers to civil proceedings registered other than suits. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to curtail the revisional power to avoid delays in the disposal of suits or proceedings.4. Application of Inherent Powers:The court addressed whether the High Court could invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bypass the restrictions of the amended Section 115. It was held that inherent powers could not be exercised to nullify the express provisions of the statute. The court emphasized that the inherent powers are applicable only when there is no specific legislation on a particular subject matter.5. Conversion to Application under Article 227:The petitioner sought to convert the revisional application into an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.P. Khaitan, which allows such conversion if a proper cause is made out. The court permitted the conversion, noting that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is not ousted by the existence of an alternative remedy.Conclusion:The court concluded that the revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable as the impugned order did not finally dispose of the suit. However, the court allowed the petitioner to convert the application into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, provided the necessary procedural requirements were fulfilled. The judgment emphasized the restricted scope of the High Court's revisional powers post-amendment and clarified the interpretation of key terms within Section 115.