JASBIR SINGH Vs. SURJEET KAUR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order vide which the applications of the respondent under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC have been allowed. The present revision petition is not maintainable against the order by virtue of which the amendment has been allowed on account of the fact that in the year 1999, there has been an amendment in Section 115 of the CPC under which the revision is filed. If one sees the proviso to Section 115 CPC, it would make it amply clear that the power of revision is to be exercised in a very limited sphere especially now after amendment, that is, in case the revisionist comes to file a revision petition against an order where if his relief was allowed by the trial court, it ought to have resulted in termination of proceedings. Meaning thereby, the party who is invoking the power of revision before the High Court must be able to show to the court that in case his prayer would have been granted then the entire suit would have terminated or would have come to an end and if it does not come to an end then in such a case, the revisionist court cannot simply vary, change or alter the order as is laid down in the first part of the proviso. The correct import of the power of revision will be appreciated only if the entire provision of revision is reproduced. Section 115 CPC reads as under:-

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provision would clearly show that the present revision petition is totally misconceived. Even if it is assumed that the amendment application would have been rejected, it would not have resulted in termination of proceedings. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.