C.R.P./147/2017 of JAGDISH PRASHAD MEHTA & ANR Vs AKHIL BHARTIA BARAI CHAURASIA SAMAJ (REGD)

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2017-12-13
Case number: 147 of 2017

Parties

C.R.P./147/2017 of JAGDISH PRASHAD MEHTA & ANR (PETITIONER)
AKHIL BHARTIA BARAI CHAURASIA (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

CRL.M.C./2191/2020 of YOGENDER @ BANTY & ORS. Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. & ANR. (2020)

Statutes cited (2)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+C.R.P.No.147/2017JAGDISH PRASHAD MEHTA & ANR PetitionersThrough: Mr. Navaneet Kumar and Mr.Kaushal, Advs.

versus

AKHIL BHARTIA BARAI CHAURASIA

SAMAJ (REGD) Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAWORDER%11.07.2017

CM No.23789/2017 (for exemption).

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

C.R.P. No.147/2017.

3. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order dated lO"^ March, 2017 of theCivil Judge of dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner / defendantfor review of the order dated 3''' September, 2016 of dismissal of theapplication filed by the petitioner / defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of theCPC.

4. The order dated 3'"'' September, 2016 has not been challenged.5. I have thus enquired from the counsel for the petitioner / defendant asto how Revision Petition under Section 115 is maintainable.

6. The counsel for the petitioner / defendant states that the learned CivilJudge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and / or has acted in

C.R.P. No. 147/2017

P^Se t of 2

exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and immaterially.

7. However the proviso to Section 115 of the CPC provides that thisCourt shall not under Section 115 of the CPC vary or reverse any order madein the course of suit except where the order, if it had been made in favour ofthe party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit.

8. If the application of the petitioner / defendant for review had beenallowed, that would have only resulted in the application under Order VIIRule 11 of the CPC being heard again and would not have resulted in thefinal disposal of the suit.

9. Even otherwise the purport of the Order XLVII Rule 7(1) of the CPCis that against an order of rejection of review no remedy can be availed of.10. The petition is thus dismissed as not maintainable

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

JULY 11, 2017PP

C.R.P. No.147/2017