Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers the High Courts in India to supervise and correct jurisdictional errors committed by subordinate courts. This provision ensures that subordinate courts operate within their legal bounds, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial process.
MEANING AND SCOPE OF REVISION
The term “revision” refers to the process by which a higher court re-examines the record of a case decided by a lower court to rectify any jurisdictional errors. Unlike an appeal, which involves re-evaluating the merits of a case, a revision focuses solely on the jurisdictional aspects. The High Court does not serve as a court of appeal in revision; its role is confined to ensuring that the subordinate court has not exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise it.
LEGAL PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 115 CPC
Section 115 of the CPC states:
“(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears—
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,
the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.”
The proviso to this section adds that the High Court shall not 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.
ESSENTIALS FOR EXERCISING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
For the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, the following conditions must be satisfied:
-
Case Decided:
There must be a case that has been decided by a subordinate court. The term “case decided” includes any order or decision that affects the rights or obligations of the parties involved. -
No Appeal Lies:
No appeal should lie against the decision to the High Court. If an appeal is available, the revision is not maintainable. -
Jurisdictional Error:
The subordinate court must have:- Exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
- Failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it; or
- Acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
CASE LAWS ILLUSTRATING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
-
Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 406:
The Supreme Court clarified that the term “case decided” refers to an adjudication that conclusively determines the rights of parties. The Court emphasized that not every order passed during the course of a suit amounts to a “case decided” under Section 115 CPC. -
Mohunt Bhagwan Ramanuj Das v. Khetter Moni Dass:
The Calcutta High Court opined that sub-clause (c) of Section 115 was intended to authorize the High Courts to interfere and correct gross and palpable errors of subordinate courts, so as to prevent grave injustice in non-appealable cases.
LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
The High Court’s power of revision is subject to certain limitations:
-
Proviso to Section 115:
The High Court shall not 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. -
Alternative Remedies:
If an effective alternative remedy, such as an appeal, is available to the aggrieved party, the High Court may decline to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN REVISION AND APPEAL
It is crucial to distinguish between an appeal and a revision:
| Aspect | Appeal | Revision |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Involves re-evaluation of both facts and law. | Confined to jurisdictional errors; does not re-assess evidence or facts. |
| Right to File | Statutory right; parties can appeal as a matter of right. | Discretionary; the High Court may or may not entertain a revision. |
| Outcome | Can result in affirmation, reversal, or modification of the lower court’s decision. | Primarily corrective; ensures the subordinate court has acted within its jurisdiction. |
AMENDMENTS AND STATE VARIATIONS
Over time, Section 115 has undergone amendments to address judicial and administrative concerns. For instance:
-
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, introduced a proviso limiting the High Court’s power to interfere with interlocutory orders unless such orders would finally dispose of the case if decided in favor of the applicant.
-
Additionally, certain states have made specific amendments to Section 115 to cater to their unique judicial requirements. For example:
- The Orissa Amendment allows the District Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of a particular value, thereby decentralizing the revisional authority.
CONCLUSION
Section 115 of the CPC serves as a vital tool for the High Courts to supervise subordinate courts and ensure they operate within their prescribed jurisdiction. By correcting jurisdictional errors, the High Courts maintain the rule of law and prevent miscarriages of justice. However, the exercise of this power is circumscribed by specific conditions and limitations to prevent its misuse and to respect the finality of subordinate court decisions in cases where appeals are not provided.
REFERENCES
- Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 406.
