Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies against a final appellate order passed in appeal under Section 104 or Order 43 Rule 1(r), and whether such appellate order is an order made in the course of a suit or other proceeding within the proviso to Section 115(1).
Analysis: The proviso to Section 115(1) was construed as governing only interim, non-appealable orders passed in the course of a suit or other proceeding. An appealable order stands outside that expression, and the final appellate order passed against such an order cannot be treated as an order made in the course of the suit. The reasoning also treated the appellate order as the operative order for the purpose of revisional scrutiny, and held that the legislative amendment did not abrogate revision against such final appellate orders where the conditions of Section 115 are otherwise satisfied.
Conclusion: The final appellate order passed in appeal under Section 104 or Order 43 Rule 1(r) is not an order in the course of a suit or other proceeding, and a revision against such order is not barred by the proviso to Section 115(1).
Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 115(1) bars revision only against interim, non-appealable orders made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, not against final appellate orders passed in appeals from appealable interlocutory orders.