Home  /  Code of Civil Procedure  /  Section 115

Section 115: Revision

Code of Civil Procedure • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1908
Section 114 All 158 Sections of Code of Civil Procedure Section 116
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)
Decree Sec 2(2) Order Sec 2(14)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 115

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vests supervisory revisional jurisdiction in the High Court over subordinate civil courts, strictly circumscribed by the 1999 Amendment proviso.

  • Exceptions & Statutory Safeguards: The Proviso inserted by the 1999 Amendment enacted a revolutionary restriction: 'Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favor of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.
  • Appellate & Judicial Remedies: Sub-section (3) specifically clarifies that revision does not operate as an automatic stay of proceedings.
  • Procedural Safeguards: The 1999 proviso fundamentally transformed civil practice by restricting High Court revision to orders that, if made in favor of the revisionist, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings.

This statutory framework establishes clear operational guidelines, balancing legal compliance with procedural safeguards.

Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers, (2003) 6 SCC 659: The Supreme Court held that post the 1999 Amendment, no revision under Section 115 lies against an interlocutory order unless the order, if decided in favor of the revisionist, would have brought a final termination to the suit or proceeding (e.g. rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11).
  • Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 (clarified in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423): The Court examined the interplay between Section 115 revision and constitutional supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 against interlocutory orders.
  • Tek Singh v. Shashi Verma, (2019) 16 SCC 678: The Court reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 is strictly jurisdictional; errors of fact or law within jurisdiction cannot be revised.
Legal Commentary:

The 1999 proviso fundamentally transformed civil practice. Interlocutory orders that do not terminate the suit (such as orders granting amendment of pleadings, dismissing discovery applications, or framing issues) cannot be challenged under Section 115. Aggrieved parties must either invoke the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 or defer the challenge to the final appeal under Section 105 CPC.

Section 114 All 158 Sections of Code of Civil Procedure Section 116