In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified the ambit of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, concerning revision petitions. The apex court, comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, held that a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC cannot be entertained against an order of a subordinate court that rejects a review application of an appealable decree on its merits.
The court observed,
“where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of the CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree. The proper remedy for the party whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits is to file an appeal against that decree and if, in the meantime, the appeal is rendered barred by time, the time spent in diligently pursuing the review application can be condoned by the Court to which an appeal is filed.”
This judgment came in response to a case where the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, had allowed the revision of the respondent and overturned the decision of the Court of First Additional Sub Court. The respondent had initiated an Original Suit seeking exclusive ownership of a property. The Trial Court invalidated a gift deed and validated a sale deed, leading the plaintiff to file a review application, which was subsequently rejected. The High Court, invoking Section 115 of the CPC, entertained the revision and granted it.
The Supreme Court further noted that when a review is allowed and the decree or order under review is reversed or modified, it becomes a composite order. The court explained,
“if the revisional court sets aside or modifies a trial court’s decree, the original decree of the trial court merges with the one passed by the revisional court. Consequently, the right of the party aggrieved by the trial court’s decree to file an appeal is affected.”
The apex court emphasized that if the revisional court’s order stands, and an appeal would typically be filed against the modified decree, the right to appeal for the aggrieved party is “seriously prejudiced.”
Concluding the judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order, stating that the High Court should not have entertained the respondent’s revision against the rejection of her review application for the appealable decree.
The case, titled “Rahimal Bathu V. Ashiyal Beevi,” is set to have profound implications on the interpretation and application of Section 115 of the CPC in future cases.
