Revised revisional jurisdiction under civil procedure law applied to pending matters, excluding interlocutory revisions lacking final-disposal effect.

The amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to revisions already pending on the date of amendment because the provision created no vested substantive right in a particular procedural remedy. The Court read the amended text as continuing to confine revision to orders that, if decided in the applicant's favour, would finally dispose of the suit or proceeding, and held that the omission of earlier saving language showed that pending revisions were not preserved. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was held inapplicable, and revisional challenges to interlocutory orders not meeting the final-disposal test were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to revisions pending on the date of the amendment and thereby rendered the revisions not maintainable.

Analysis: The amended provision retained the restriction that revision would lie only where the order, if made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. The omission of the earlier saving language, unlike the earlier amendment of 1976, indicated that pending revisions were not preserved. The power under Section 115 is a supervisory jurisdiction and does not confer a vested substantive right. A litigant has no vested right in a particular procedural mode, and a court cannot supply a casus omissus where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The amended Section 115 applied to pending revisions, and revisions against interlocutory orders that would not finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding were not maintainable.

---