SECTION 115 CPC

Supreme Court

1. “In this view of the matter there seems to be no manner of doubt that the Senior Subordinate
Judge had jurisdiction to extend the time Under Section 148 Code of Civil Procedure on sufficient
cause being made out. The first condition precedent to enable the High Court to exercise its
revisional jurisdiction Under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure was, therefore, lacking.
Likewise, nothing has been brought to our notice on the basis of which it could be said that the
discretion exercised by the Senior Subordinate Judge was in breach of any provision of law or that
he committed any error of procedure which was material and may have affected the ultimate
decision. That being so, the High Court had no power to interfere with the order of the Senior
Subordinate Judge, however profoundly it may have differed from the conclusions of that Judge on
questions of fact or law.”1

Allahabad High Court

2. “Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
legal provisions and pronouncements of the Apex Court and of the High Courts as noted above,
this Court though is tempted to express its independent opinion on the question of maintainability
of revision under Section 115 C.P.C. but desist itself from doing so being a High Court. The
judicial discipline demands that this Court shall follow the judgment rendered in ITI Ltd. (supra)
as a binding precedent. On the doubt raised by the Apex Court in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Ltd. (supra) to refer the matter to a larger bench, the judgment in ITI Ltd. (supra) would not be
rendered per incuriam or obiter dicta but still is binding on the High Court in view of Article 141
of the Constitution as the law of land. In the end, following the law laid down by the Apex Court
in ITI Ltd. (supra), it is held that against the order impugned in the present petition, passed by the
District Judge, the revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is maintainable before this Court.
The second aspect that has to be considered is the respective scope of the revisional jurisdiction
under Section 115 C.P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India of the High Court in
view of the fact that both the remedies lie before this Court.
Section 115 C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on a superior court to revise the order passed in a case
decided in a suit or other proceedings by sub-ordinate court, where no appeal lies against the
order and where the sub-ordinate court has committed jurisdictional error in not exercising the
jurisdiction vested in it or exercise a jurisdiction which is not vested in it by law or has acted in
exercise of such jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. Thus, the supervisory
jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. is a power conferred on the High Court to call for the record
of any case which has been decided by any Court sub-ordinate to it, such power is now
circumscribed by the amendment of 2002 by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003 w.e.f. 1.7.2002. From the
language of Section 115 C.P.C., it is clear that the power of superintendence therein has been
1
Kanihya (Dead) through L.Rs. vs. Sukhi Ram MANU/SC/0386/2024
 conferred on the High Court for the purpose of considering the legality, propriety, jurisdiction-
wise error, if any, of the orders made by the Court sub-ordinate to it.
Thus, it can be seen that the powers of the High Court under Section 115 C.P.C. and Article 227 of
the Constitution are analogous subject to their own limitations and can be exercised in a case of
jurisdictional error committed by the sub-ordinate court. With the amendment of Section 115
C.P.C., the revision against an interlocutory order is maintainable subject to the conditions
provided in the said Section i.e. in case, it amounts to finally disposing of the suit or proceeding or
likely to occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury. The petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution, however, can be maintained irrespective of the nature of the order passed by the
sub-ordinate court, however, the power is restricted in a sense that it is to be invoked only to
correct errors of jurisdiction. Where the Court poses itself a wrong question or approaches a
question in an improper manner, in such a situation even the findings of fact rendered by the sub-
ordinate court would be amenable to correction at the hands of the High Courts under Article 227
of the Constitution as the failure to render necessary finding to support its order would be
jurisdictional error liable to correction. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution, therefore, is unfettered and unrestricted power to remedy the
glaring mistake committed by the sub-ordinate court. The availability of adequate alternative
remedy to the applicant would not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court as a rigid or inflexible
rule. There can be extra-ordinary circumstances where despite the existence of alternative legal
remedy, the High Court may interfere in favour of an applicant but certainly, there shall be extra-
ordinary circumstances to invoke such power. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High
Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the sub-ordinate court as to the manner
in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh in an appropriate case the High Court may
itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the sub-ordinate court as that
court could have made in the facts and circumstances of the case. The rider is that the High
Courts would keep in mind the limitations of the supervisory jurisdiction and refrain from
exercising it casually or as a Court of Appeal.”2
3. “It is true that the power to revise an order of a subordinate court is available to a superior court,
where no appeal lies against that order. The impugned order here is an order rejecting a
temporary injunction application and that order is clearly appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r)
of the Code. Going by the provisions of Section 115 of the Code, a revision against the order
passed by the Civil Judge would not lie to any superior court, including the District Judge. In that
view of the matter, the learned Additional District Judge would not have jurisdiction to entertain
and decide the civil revision, where the order impugned has been passed. But that is not the end of
the matter in a case like the present one. If this Court were to technically hold the revision not
maintainable and set aside the impugned order, the Court would, in fact, be restoring an illegal
order on the merits of the parties' case. The impugned order made by the learned Additional

2
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (UPRNNL) vs. C and C Construction Ltd.: MANU/UP/3503/2018
 District Judge is flawless on merits, may be passed in proceedings that were not competent. He
could have required the plaintiffs to convert the revision into a miscellaneous appeal under Order
XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code and decided the same, may be, reaching the same conclusions. It is the
essence of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution that interference with
orders of subordinate courts and Tribunals is not to be made on grounds of illegality or even
patent illegality alone. The order impugned should also be unjust and iniquitous. If the order is
one that does substantial justice, and the flaw even about jurisdiction is one merely about the form
of remedy, in the opinion of this Court, the order ought not be interfered with. Even if the plaintiffs
were compelled to choose the remedy of an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code, it
would lie before the same forum. Had the wrong remedy chosen made a difference in forum,
different principles would apply.”3
4. “Section 115 CPC, as applicable to the State of U.P., provides for remedy to any of the party to
the litigation to challenge the order passed by the court below. If the subordinate court has acted
in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the superior court may revise
such an order. The superior court may also vary or reverse any order in exercise of revisional
powers, if the order is allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable
injury to the party against whom it is made. An order passed under Section 24 C.P.C. will also fall
in that category.
The moot point involved here is whether an order granting or refusing a transfer application by
the District Judge is a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 CPC, as amended in its
application to the State of U.P. Needless to say that it would further postulate if proceedings for
transfer under Section 24 CPC, culminating in the order of the District Judge either way is 'other
proceeding' within the meaning of Section 115(1) of the Code. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, since
there is an added sub-Section (3) of Section 115 introduced by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003, it would
also require examination whether orders made on a transfer application by the District Judge,
either way pass muster under sub- Section (3) of Section 115.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is true that orders made on an
transfer application do not have the effect of any kind of a pronouncement on the rights of parties
involved in the suit or a part thereof, but the expression 'case decided' under Section 115 CPC
employs the expression in the context of proceedings that can be best gathered from the precise
phraseology of the relevant part of the statute. The relevant words in sub-Section (1) of Section
115 say: "case decided in an original suit or other proceeding.."
The order passed on a transfer application by the District Judge under Section 24 CPC, in our
opinion, is "other proceeding-- within the meaning of Section 115 CPC, because the proceedings,
though ancillary to the suit, are judicial in nature, where the Court has to consider grounds for
transfer urged by one party and opposed by the other, together with the material on record. The
Court then proceeds to decide whether the suit, appeal or whatever the nature of the cause, ought

3
Govardhan and Ors. vs. Jaldhara Devi Maha Vidyalay MANU/UP/2151/2020
 to be heard by one Court or the other. The outcome may not have any direct impact on the lis
involved in the suit, appeal or other kind of proceedings, subject matter of the transfer
application, but a decision is to be judicially arrived at by the District Judge after due application
of mind and hearing parties. It is in this sense that a transfer application is "other proceeding--
and the order passed thereon a "case decided--, because the order passed on the transfer
application by the District Judge disposes it of finally. Since the order passed on a transfer
application by the District Judge under Section 24 CPC is, for very obvious reasons, not an order
passed by the District Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, a revision to
the High Court under Section 115 (1) CPC, as amended by U.P. Act No. 31 of 2003 and earlier by
U.P. Act No. 31 of 1978, would not be barred.”4
5. “The other principle, on which the decision in Sanjay Khanduja turned, was that the two suits
were essentially and completely different and the evidence led there would be for entirely different
purpose. So far as the holding on the embargo under Section 115 of the Code is concerned, this is
a case where consolidation, if not permitted, may work serious injustice to the plaintiff. The
reason is that there is a possibility that at the trial of the first suit, where the cause of action and
the evidence is common with the second suit, the relief claimed may or may not be found tenable,
even if the evidence establishes the plaintiff's case. It is, therefore, eminently a fit case, where both
suits ought to be tried together with evidence recorded in one or the other suit, as envisaged under
Order IV-A of the Code.”5
6. “Thus, the power of the revision of Superior Court or High Court is that of an Appellate Court
with the only restraint that the prerequisite conditions to invoke power under Section 115 of C.P.C.
must be present. Once, the High Court is of the view that the essential conditions to invoke
jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. are present, then the High Court can revise the order
passed by the subordinate courts in the exercise of power under Section 115 of C.P.C.
At this stage, it would be apt to notice that Section 115 of C.P.C. as applicable to State of Uttar
Pradesh, states ''superior Court may 'revise' an order passed in a suit or other proceedings by the
subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order ". The legislature has used the word
'revise' which in the dictionary is described as meaning to 're-examine, to review, to correct, or to
amend the fault'. So the legislature in the State of U.P. has given ample power under Section 115
of C.P.C. by using the word 'revise' to the revisional court to review, correct or amend the fault in
the orders of the subordinate courts.”6
7. “Section 115 of the CPC, deals with the High Court's power of revision. Briefly stating, in a case
which is not subject to appeal, the High Court is empowered to call for the records of the case
decided by the Court below, and if the Court below has exercised a jurisdiction vested in it by law,
or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested by law or acted with material irregularity, etc. in the
exercise of its jurisdiction, the High Court may interfere.”

4
Babu Singh and Ors. vs. Raj Bahadur Singh MANU/UP/4834/2022
5
Kamla Kapoor and Ors. vs. Neelam Kapoor MANU/UP/3977/2023
6
Shri Bankhandi Nath Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dharmendra Kumar Rathore MANU/UP/1332/2024
 The primary objective of Section 115 of the CPC, is to prevent subordinate Courts from acting
arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally or irregularly in the exercise of their jurisdiction. It clothes
the High Court with the powers to see that the proceedings of the subordinate Courts are
concluded in accordance with law within the bounds of their jurisdiction and in furtherance of
justice.”7

Bombay High Court

8. “It is therefore to be seen in the light of these provisions and the judgments relied upon by both the
learned Advocates whether the learned Trial Judge exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or
acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity as to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and whether any of the
predicates of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code were fulfilled and despite
which the learned Trial Judge committed an error in holding otherwise.”8
9. “The scope under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is limited. To exercise the powers
under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the revision petitioner should satisfy the Court
that the sub-ordinate Court to the High Court had exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law
or failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or
with the material irregularity.”9
10. “It is now well settled that the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by way of
revision could be exercised by the High Court in connection with the Order passed by the Trial
Court where it appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested by it in law. (b) To have
failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. (c) To have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally
or with material irregularity.
The aspects mentioned above in clause (a) and (b) are not claimed in the present proceedings. It is
only their contention that clause 115(1)(c) of Civil Procedure Code is attracted. Mr. Agni submits
that the Trial Court acted with material irregularity in directing enquiry to decide preliminary
objections.”10
11. “This Court power to interfere under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code is very limited and it
can be only exercised when the subordinate Court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the
exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the Appellate
Court has rendered finding that there is no evidence to show that the respondent-tenant is not
utilizing the suit shop for 6 months prior to the issuance of the notice of eviction. This finding is
based on the fact that the plaintiff-landlord has made contradictory statement as regards the date
of closure of the shop so also there is positive evidence from the tenant that he has been utilizing

7
Sanjay Agarwal vs. Rahul Agarwal MANU/UP/0070/2024
8
Wilson Pereira Carvalho and Ors. vs. Nicolau Fernandes MANU/MH/2802/2018
9
Laxman Vyankayya Shirsul vs. Shankar Vyankayya Shirsul MANU/MH/5075/2023
10
Fatima Coutinho and Ors. vs. Antonio Xavier Gomes Pereira MANU/MH/4580/2023
 the shop although there was no electricity connection and that this finding cannot be said to be
perverse in the facts of the case. As such, it cannot be held that the appellate court has exercised
its jurisdiction erroneously and with material irregularity.”11
12. “It would be relevant to note here that the scope of Section 115 of CPC is limited. While
exercising revisional jurisdiction, reappraisal of evidence can be made only to ascertain whether
the conclusion arrived at by the fact finding court is reasonable or not. The court, in exercise of
powers under Section 115 of the CPC cannot interfere with the finding of fact merely because it
does not agree with the findings recorded by the courts below. Having gone through the records
and proceedings, in my considered view, the Trial court as well as the Appellate court has not
committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in ordering eviction of the Defendants from the
suit premises. Hence, no case is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the
courts below.”12
13. “This Court power to interfere under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code is very limited and it
can be only exercised when the subordinate Court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the
exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the Appellate
Court has rendered finding that there is no evidence to show that the respondent-tenant is not
utilizing the suit shop for 6 months prior to the issuance of the notice of eviction. This finding is
based on the fact that the plaintiff-landlord has made contradictory statement as regards the date
of closure of the shop so also there is positive evidence from the tenant that he has been utilizing
the shop although there was no electricity connection and that this finding cannot be said to be
perverse in the facts of the case. As such, it cannot be held that the appellate court has exercised
its jurisdiction erroneously and with material irregularity.”13
14. “In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code, the jurisdiction of this Court is no
doubt narrow. However, once this Court notices a patent error in the Orders passed by the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court, this Court would not turn a blind eye and allow the perpetration
of such patent error on a specious plea of limitation on its revisionary jurisdiction under Section
115 of the Code. The Trial Court has committed a material irregularity which needs to be
corrected by this Court in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.”14

Calcutta High Court

15. “Although it is settled that ninety days, which is the limitation for filing a revisional application
under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was taken to be a reasonable period for the
purpose of filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and beyond that
period reasonable explanation had to be given for the delay, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

11
Mahindrasing Wariyamsingh Saluja vs. Tarachand Rupchand Bhatti MANU/MH/3649/2023
12
Ajay Mahasukhlal Shah vs. Chandrakant Babulal Shah MANU/MH/5504/2023
13
Mahindrasing Wariyamsingh Saluja vs. Tarachand Rupchand Bhatti MANU/MH/3649/2023
14
Shridhar K. Berde vs. Ranjeetmal J. Oswal MANU/MH/1782/2024
 Court, cited by the petitioner, is binding on this Court in that regard. It was held, as cited above,
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if the Court was convinced that the government officials
or public servants had deliberately caused delay to defeat justice, in view of larger public interest,
the Court should take a lenient view to condone the delay and decide the matter on merits.”15
16. “Sub-section (1) of Section 115A provides that a District Court may exercise all or any of the
powers which may be exercised by the High Court under Section 115. Sub-section (2) provides
that where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a District Court in pursuance
of the provision of Sub-Section (1), the provisions of Section 115 shall, so far as may be apply to
such proceeding and reference in the said section to the High Court shall be construed as
reference to the District Court.
Thus upon a conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 115 and Section 115A of the Code of
Civil Procedure it appears that though the District Court can exercise the revisional powers, but
the scope of such power is very much limited. Such revisional power can be exercised by the
District Court only in case the order sought to be challenged in revision, had been made in favour
of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.
The petitioner challenged the order dated August 29, 2008 passed by the learned Trial Judge by
filing an application under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned
Additional District Judge, Sealdah. By virtue of the said order the prayer for acceptance of
belated deposit of arrears of rent was rejected and consequently the application under Section
7(3) filed by the plaintiff/opposite party was allowed.”16
17. “Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the validity of the
interpretation of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 115 of the Code, as projected by the opposite
party no. 7, ought to be tested on the anvil of law.
Although it is stipulated in sub-Section (3) that, where any proceeding for revision is 'commenced'
before the District Court, the decision of the District Court on such proceeding shall be final and
(additionally) no further proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained by the High Court or
any other court, such expression should be interpreted in totality and a stray phrase cannot be
culled out therefrom for being construed independently.
Sub-Sections (3) and (4), read as a whole, clearly indicate that the bar envisaged therein is in
respect of the revisionist petitioner shopping forums by exploring different courts having
concurrent jurisdiction. The clear intention of the Legislature, as evident from the language of
sub-Section (3) of Section 115A, is that if there is any conclusive finality by way of an order being
passed by one of the forums having concurrent jurisdiction, the revisionist-petitioner cannot go
back and take a second chance before a different forum exercising concurrent power of revision.
That apart, the specific term "entertained" as used in sub-Section (3) of Section 115A, can only
signify a High Court taking up the revisional application for being heard on merits, upon being
prima facie satisfied that there is an arguable question involved.
15
Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs. Krishna Kumar Hazra MANU/WB/1710/2018
16
Chitra Das and Ors. vs. Kashi Nath Chakraborty MANU/WB/2251/2019
 In the present case, there was no scope of entertaining the revisional application before the
withdrawal of the similar application under Section 115A of the Code from the District Court.
Today, for the first time, the revisional application was heard for the purpose of admission and
adjudication. Prior to that, it was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which precludes any presumption that the revisional
application was entertained, since the revisional application remained non est in the eye of law
till the application for condonation of delay was allowed.
Since the condonation application has been allowed only today, when the revisional application
under Section 115A stands withdrawn long back, there was no question of prior entertainment of
the revisional application by this Court. Hence, the same has been entertained and heard only
today, which obviates the bar stipulated in Section 115A sub-Section (3) of the Code.”17
18. “Therefore, from a reading of the above Judgments, it is evident that as against a decree passed in
a suit filed under Section 6 of the Act, a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
is available to the unsuccessful party and the High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction is
only concerned with the legality/propriety of the exercise of jurisdiction and not appreciate the
evidence. However, the revision before this Court has been filed invoking the superintending
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Section 115
of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no quarrel to the proposition that where an Act expressly
bars a remedy by way of an appeal or otherwise, the superintending power of the High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. In the instant case Section 6 (3) of
the Act has placed a bar to a further appeal or review. Therefore, the invocation Article 227 is in
order.”18

Delhi High Court

19. “With regards the contention raised on behalf of the respondents to the effect that this Court ought
not to go into the merits or demerits of the contentions raised by the parties in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of
India under which the petitions have been filed or read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, inasmuch as this Court ought not to impose its own view on consideration of the
record merely because another view may be taken, it is essential to observe that both in terms of
Section 115 (1) (b) and Section 115 Sub-clause (1)(c) this Court may make such order as it thinks
fit where it appears to this Court that the Court subordinate to it appears to have failed to exercise
jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or qua material
irregularity, or in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution which confers inter alia judicial
superintendence over the subordinate Courts apart from administrative, though undoubtedly the
jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure ought to be exercised sparingly and only in an appropriate case, the
17
Tibrewala Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kesar Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. MANU/WB/0853/2021
18
Biswanath Singha vs. Sudevi Gupta MANU/WB/0679/2024
 aspect of consideration of the same cannot be obliviated and has necessarily to be assessed and
ascertained by this Court on consideration in exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with law. It is
thus on this threshold of the impugned order being in accordance with law or otherwise and being
in exercise or otherwise of jurisdiction vested in the Court which ought to be exercised when such
jurisdiction exists and circumstances so warrant, that the contentions raised on behalf of either
side, shall be considered herein.”19
20. “In regard to the ambit of Section 115 of the CPC, it is an already appreciated point of law by the
Courts in a catena of judgments. The said provision only confers a supervisory power to this
Court with the main aim of keeping superintendence. It embarks a particular limitation
prescribing that the High Court shall not interfere merely, because the Court below has wrongly
decided a particular suit being not maintainable.”20
21. “Section 115 of the CPC, deals with the High Court's power of revision. Briefly stating, in a case
which is not subject to appeal, the High Court is empowered to call for the records of the case
decided by the Court below, and if the Court below has exercised a jurisdiction vested in it by law,
or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested by law or acted with material irregularity, etc. in the
exercise of its jurisdiction, the High Court may interfere.
Section 115 of the CPC invests all High Courts with revisional jurisdiction. It declares that the
High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate
to such High Court wherein no appeal lies, to satisfy itself on three aspects; (i) that the order
passed by the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (ii) that the case is one in which the
Court has power to exercise its jurisdiction; and (ii) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has
not acted illegally, that is, breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is by
committing some error of procedure in the course of trial which is material in that it may have
affected the ultimate decision.
The provision thus takes within its limited jurisdiction, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it,
or the illegal assumption of it. It is not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the
question of jurisdiction is not involved. In other words, it is only in cases where the subordinate
Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so
vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity that the
jurisdiction of the High Court may be properly invoked.”21
22. “The scope of Section 115 of the CPC includes jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise, or non-
exercise of it, or the illegal assumption of it. The mere fact that the decision of the trial court is
erroneous due to a question of fact or of law does not amount to illegality or material irregularity.
It embarks a peculiar kind of limitation. The High Court shall not interfere merely because the
Court below has wrongly decided a particular suit at not being maintainable. It is also prudent to
apply the ratio observed in the aforestated judgments, by way of which, this Court finds that not

19
Swami Ramdev vs. Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/3565/2018
20
Balraj vs. Nathuram Sharma MANU/DE/7377/2023
21
Saket Grover vs. Hemant Grover MANU/DE/6757/2023
 every order of the learned Trial Court can be regarded as an order that can be put under the
ambit of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.”22
23. “Section 115 of the CPC, deals with the High Court's power of revision. Briefly stating, in a case
which is not subject to appeal, the High Court is empowered to call for the records of the case
decided by the Court below, and if the Court below has exercised a jurisdiction vested in it by law,
or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested by law or acted with material irregularity, etc. in the
exercise of its jurisdiction, the High Court may interfere.
Section 115 of the CPC invests all High Courts with revisional jurisdiction. It declares that the
High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate
to such High Court wherein no appeal lies, to satisfy itself on three aspects; (i) that the order
passed by the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (ii) that the case is one in which the
Court has power to exercise its jurisdiction; and (ii) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has
not acted illegally, that is, breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is by
committing some error of procedure in the course of trial which is material in that it may have
affected the ultimate decision.
The provision thus takes within its limited jurisdiction, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it,
or the illegal assumption of it. It is not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the
question of jurisdiction is not involved. In other words, it is only in cases where the subordinate
Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so
vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity that the
jurisdiction of the High Court may be properly invoked.
The primary objective of Section 115 of the CPC, is to prevent subordinate Courts from acting
arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally or irregularly in the exercise of their jurisdiction. It clothes
the High Court with the powers to see that the proceedings of the subordinate Courts are
concluded in accordance with law within the bounds of their jurisdiction and in furtherance of
justice.”23
24. “Section 115 of the CPC vests the High Court with the revisional powers, thereby, empowering it
to exercise its supervisory power over the subordinate courts within its jurisdiction. However, this
Court, having a limited jurisdiction under the said provision is not allowed to enter into the merits
of the evidence, nor can it allow additional evidence and only needs to satisfy itself as to whether
the requirements of law have been duly adhered by the subordinate court and whether there arises
any irregularity as to the failure or exercise of jurisdiction with respect to the order in question.
Unless there is an error of law so apparent on the face of the record, or there is an error in
exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate court, the order made by the subordinate court ought
not to be interfered with.”24

22
Monika Singh and Ors. vs. Sudha Prasad MANU/DE/5115/2023
23
Usha vs. Raj Kumar MANU/DE/8815/2023
24
Nidhi Goyal vs. Guddu Chaudhary MANU/DE/6302/2024
 25. “It is a settled principle of law that while adjudicating a petition under Section 115 of the CPC,
this Court has limited powers and can only look into the limited question of jurisdiction of the
Trial Court. This Court only has to determine if the order passed by the Court below contains any
illegality or irregularity apparent on the face of it and cannot go into the merits of the case.”25
26. “The law with respect to Section 115 of the CPC is also clear that exercising revisional
jurisdiction conferred upon the Courts, is discretionary, and the Courts shall only interfere with
the findings of the learned Trial Court when there is a jurisdictional error or legal irregularity in
the same.
Therefore, taking into consideration the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC and
bearing in mind the contentions raised by the counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the
considered view that various issues have not been dealt with by the learned Trial Court as the
above said suit was proceeded ex-parte.”26
27. “Section 115 of the CPC invests all High Courts with revisional jurisdiction. It declares that the
High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate
to such High Court wherein no appeal lies, to satisfy itself on three aspects; (i) that the order
passed by the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (ii) that the case is one in which the
Court has power to exercise its jurisdiction; and (iii) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has
not acted illegally, that is, breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is by
committing some error of procedure in the course of trial which is material in that it may have
affected the ultimate decision.”27

Kerala High Court

No relevant judgments found

Madras High Court

28. “Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code is a power vested in the High Court to supervise the
Subordinate Courts. The jurisdiction exercised by the Court under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
Code is termed as 'Revisional Jurisdiction'. Only when a case falls within the ambit under Section
115 of Civil Procedure Code, a Revision will be entertained. The Power of the High Court under
Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code can be invoked in cases in which no Appeal lies to the High
Court and the case was determined by any Court subordinate to such High Court and such
subordinate Court appeared:”28
29. “A bare reading of the same, it would be clear that this Court under Section 115 can call for the
record of any case, which has been decided by any Court Subordinate to it, against which, if no
appeal lies and if in the opinion of this Court, there is erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or failure

25
Delhi Diocesan Trust Association vs. Edwin William MANU/DE/6409/2024
26
Bhanu Pratap vs. Babul MANU/DE/6410/2024
27
Rema Gupta vs. Mahinder Lal MANU/DE/1897/2024
28
K.B. Rajendran vs. Tmt. A. Shanthi MANU/TN/2855/2018
 to exercise jurisdiction or if the trial Court has acted illegal in exercise of its jurisdiction or with
material irregularity, then this Court can exercise the revisionary jurisdiction. The proviso,
curtails the said power of revision by stating that under this section, 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
proceedings. An exception is also made to the proviso that even if the order is made in the course
of the suit or other proceedings, still if the order if it would have made in favour of the revision
petitioner, if it would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings, then the revision is
entertainable.”29

29
P. Natarajan vs. K. Vasantha MANU/TN/4191/2024