Revisional interference with interlocutory orders must stay within Section 115 limits, and interim mandatory relief needs strict proof.

Revisional interference under Section 115 CPC is confined to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction, and after the 1999 amendment it is further restricted for interlocutory orders unless the order, if made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding. The High Court's revisional interference was therefore impermissible because it treated the matter as if in appeal. Interim mandatory relief also requires a strong prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience, and those settled tests were not applied; the refusal of such relief was wrongly disturbed and the judgments below were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere in revision with an interlocutory order in the circumstances of the case under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) whether the order declining interim mandatory relief was liable to be disturbed.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere in revision with an interlocutory order in the circumstances of the case under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 115 is confined to jurisdictional errors, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or exercise of jurisdiction with illegality or material irregularity. After the 1999 amendment, the proviso limits interference with interlocutory orders unless the order, had it been made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding. The impugned judgment did not address these constraints and effectively reassessed the matter as if in appeal.

Conclusion: The revision could not have been allowed on the basis adopted by the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the order declining interim mandatory relief was liable to be disturbed.

Analysis: Interim mandatory injunction requires a strong case for trial, irreparable or serious injury, and balance of convenience in favour of the applicant. The High Court did not apply these settled tests and did not deal with the concurrent findings below that the relief at that stage would amount to decreeing the suit itself.

Conclusion: The order refusing interim mandatory relief was wrongly interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the judgments of the courts below were restored, with a direction that the suit be disposed of expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional interference with an interlocutory order is impermissible unless the statutory limits of Section 115 are satisfied, and interim mandatory injunction can be granted only on satisfaction of the settled stringent tests.

---