https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172387 The amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure curtailed revisional jurisdiction by retaining only the requirement that the impugned order, if decided in favour of the applicant, would finally dispose of the suit or proceeding. The earlier basis of failure of justice or irreparable injury was omitted, and revisions against interlocutory orders were therefore confined to this narrow test. A revision under Section 115 is a statutory supervisory remedy, not a vested substantive right, so the amendment applied to pending revision petitions. In the absence of a saving clause, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve them, and no casus omissus could be supplied by interpretation. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Sep 2025 12:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172387 The amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure curtailed revisional jurisdiction by retaining only the requirement that the impugned order, if decided in favour of the applicant, would finally dispose of the suit or proceeding. The earlier basis of failure of justice or irreparable injury was omitted, and revisions against interlocutory orders were therefore confined to this narrow test. A revision under Section 115 is a statutory supervisory remedy, not a vested substantive right, so the amendment applied to pending revision petitions. In the absence of a saving clause, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve them, and no casus omissus could be supplied by interpretation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172387