Revision Under Section 115 of CPC
Key Takeaways
- Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a supervisory remedy through which a High Court may examine certain decisions of subordinate courts where no appeal lies.
- Revisional jurisdiction is mainly concerned with jurisdictional errors, such as exercising a jurisdiction not vested by law, refusing to exercise jurisdiction that is legally vested, or acting illegally or with material irregularity while exercising jurisdiction.
- Revision is not equivalent to an appeal. The High Court does not ordinarily reassess the entire case, reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings merely because another view is possible.
- Section 115 applies only when the matter has been decided by a court subordinate to the High Court and no appeal lies against the relevant decision.
- The High Court cannot ordinarily vary or reverse an interlocutory order unless the order, had it been made in favour of the revision applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding.
- Filing a revision does not automatically stay the suit or proceeding before the subordinate court. A separate stay order must be passed by the High Court.
- Revisional power is discretionary. Even where the technical conditions of Section 115 are satisfied, interference is not automatic and depends upon the circumstances of the case.
What Is Revision Under CPC?
Revision is a supervisory remedy available under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It empowers the High Court to examine certain cases decided by courts subordinate to it where no appeal lies and where the subordinate court has committed a jurisdictional error.
In simple terms, revision allows the High Court to supervise subordinate courts and ensure that they act within the limits of the jurisdiction given to them by law.
Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.
The purpose of revisional jurisdiction is not to provide another complete round of adjudication. It is intended primarily to correct serious errors relating to the exercise of jurisdiction.
Section 115 therefore gives the High Court limited supervisory power rather than unrestricted appellate power.
What Does Section 115 of CPC Provide?
Section 115 CPC permits the High Court to call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate court where no appeal lies to the High Court.
After examining the record, the High Court may interfere where the subordinate court appears:
Join live law courses and learn directly from legal professionals.
- to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law;
- to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law; or
- to have acted illegally or with material irregularity while exercising its jurisdiction.
These three grounds form the foundation of revisional jurisdiction under the CPC.
The provision also places important restrictions on the power of the High Court. In particular, the High Court cannot ordinarily vary or reverse an interlocutory order unless the order, if made in favour of the revision applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding.
What Is Revisional Jurisdiction?
Revisional jurisdiction is the supervisory authority exercised by a superior court over subordinate courts for correcting jurisdictional errors.
Under Section 115 CPC, this supervisory jurisdiction is vested in the High Court.
The jurisdiction is narrower than appellate jurisdiction. An appellate court may, depending upon the nature of the appeal, reconsider questions of fact and law. A revisional court primarily examines whether the subordinate court acted within the jurisdiction conferred upon it.
The central question in revision is therefore not merely whether the subordinate court reached an incorrect conclusion, but whether there was a legally significant defect in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
What Are the Essential Conditions for Revision Under Section 115 CPC?
A revision under Section 115 can be entertained only when certain conditions are fulfilled.
There Must Be a Case Decided
The first requirement is that there must be a “case which has been decided”.
Explore the latest legal opportunities for law students and lawyers.
The expression is wider than a final decree or final judgment. The Explanation to Section 115 clarifies that the expression includes an order made, or an order deciding an issue, during the course of a suit or other proceeding.
However, the existence of a decided issue does not automatically make every interlocutory order revisable. The restrictions contained in the proviso must also be satisfied.
The Decision Must Be by a Subordinate Court
The decision must have been made by a court subordinate to the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction.
Section 115 therefore operates as part of the supervisory relationship between the High Court and subordinate civil courts within its territorial jurisdiction.
No Appeal Must Lie
Revision is generally available only where no appeal lies against the relevant decision.
If the CPC provides an appeal against the decree or order, Section 115 cannot ordinarily be used as an alternative to the appellate remedy.
Sub-section (2) expressly provides that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to a subordinate court.
There Must Be a Jurisdictional Error
The subordinate court must have committed one of the jurisdictional errors recognised under Section 115.
In Major Michael Mascarenhas v. John Mascarenhas, the Karnataka High Court discussed the requirements governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, including the necessity of a jurisdictional defect falling within Section 115.
Join live law courses and learn directly from legal professionals.
What Are the Three Grounds for Revision Under Section 115 CPC?
The High Court may exercise revisional jurisdiction on three principal grounds.
Exercise of Jurisdiction Not Vested by Law
A subordinate court commits a jurisdictional error when it exercises authority that the law has not conferred upon it.
For example, a court may entertain or decide a matter that legally falls outside its jurisdiction. In such a situation, the problem is not merely an incorrect conclusion. The court has acted beyond the limits of its legal authority.
Understanding the different types of jurisdiction under CPC is therefore important in determining whether a court has acted within the authority legally conferred upon it.
Revision may be invoked to correct such an excess of jurisdiction.
Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction Vested by Law
A jurisdictional error may also arise when a court refuses or fails to exercise a jurisdiction that the law requires or permits it to exercise.
If jurisdiction exists but the court declines to exercise it because of an erroneous understanding of its legal authority, revisional interference may become possible.
The distinction is important. Section 115 is concerned both with excessive exercise of jurisdiction and wrongful refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
Illegal Exercise of Jurisdiction or Material Irregularity
The third ground applies where the subordinate court has jurisdiction over the matter but acts illegally or with material irregularity while exercising that jurisdiction.
The words “illegally” and “with material irregularity” do not mean that every legal or procedural mistake is revisable.
The irregularity must relate materially to the manner in which jurisdiction has been exercised. Revision is therefore not meant to correct every minor procedural defect.
Is Revision the Same as an Appeal?
No. Revision and appeal are distinct remedies.
An appeal is generally a continuation of the original proceeding and may permit reconsideration of questions of fact, law, or both, depending upon the nature and scope of the appeal.
Revision is narrower.
The High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction does not ordinarily sit as another appellate court. Its principal concern is whether the subordinate court has acted within the jurisdiction granted to it by law.
The broad distinctions may be understood as follows:
| Basis | Appeal | Revision |
| Nature | Statutory appellate remedy | Supervisory remedy |
| Scope | May involve reconsideration of facts and law | Primarily concerned with jurisdictional errors |
| Availability | Exists where statute provides a right of appeal | Generally available where no appeal lies |
| Reappreciation of Evidence | May be possible depending on the appeal | Ordinarily not undertaken merely to reach another factual conclusion |
| Right or Discretion | Statutory appeal may be available as of right when provided | Revisional interference is discretionary |
Thus, revision cannot be treated as a substitute for an appeal.
Can the High Court Reappreciate Evidence in Revision?
Ordinarily, revisional jurisdiction is not meant for a fresh examination of the entire evidence.
The High Court does not normally interfere merely because another conclusion could have been reached on the material before the subordinate court.
The purpose of Section 115 is to correct jurisdictional defects rather than factual disagreements.
However, evidence may become relevant to the limited extent necessary to determine whether the subordinate court acted within its jurisdiction or committed a material irregularity in exercising that jurisdiction.
The distinction lies between examining the record for a jurisdictional defect and undertaking a complete rehearing on facts.
Can Every Interlocutory Order Be Challenged in Revision?
No. Section 115 significantly restricts revision against interlocutory orders.
The proviso states that the High Court shall not vary or reverse an order made, or an order deciding an issue, during the course of a suit or other proceeding unless the order, had it been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding.
This restriction narrows the scope of revision against intermediate procedural orders.
The purpose is to prevent frequent revisional challenges from interrupting the progress of civil suits and proceedings.
Accordingly, the practical test is whether a favourable decision on the challenged order would have brought the suit or proceeding itself to an end.
What Does “Case Which Has Been Decided” Mean?
The expression “case which has been decided” under Section 115 has a wider meaning than a final decree.
The Explanation to Section 115 expressly includes:
- an order made during a suit or proceeding; and
- an order deciding an issue during a suit or proceeding.
However, this expanded definition must be read together with the proviso restricting interference with interlocutory orders.
Therefore, although an order made during proceedings may technically constitute a “case decided”, it may still not be revisable unless the statutory conditions for interference are satisfied.
Is Revisional Jurisdiction Discretionary?
Yes. The language of Section 115 uses the word “may”, indicating that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is discretionary.
Satisfaction of the technical requirements of Section 115 does not create an absolute right to obtain interference from the High Court.
The court may consider factors such as:
- Nature of the jurisdictional error: The seriousness and effect of the error may influence whether revisional intervention is justified.
- Resulting injustice: The High Court may consider whether the jurisdictional defect has caused substantial injustice in the proceeding.
- Conduct of the applicant: As revision involves discretionary jurisdiction, the conduct of the party seeking relief may be relevant.
- Availability of another remedy: The existence of an effective statutory remedy may affect the exercise of revisional power.
- Interests of justice: The High Court ultimately considers whether interference is necessary within the limits prescribed by Section 115.
In Sham Mohan Lal v. Jai Gopal, the discretionary nature of revisional jurisdiction was recognised. Courts may decline interference where the irregularity does not justify exercise of the supervisory power.
Similarly, the conduct of the revision applicant may be relevant. A party seeking discretionary relief is expected to approach the court fairly and disclose material circumstances.
Can Revision Be Used When an Appeal Is Available?
Ordinarily, no.
Section 115(2) expressly prohibits the High Court from varying or reversing a decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to a court subordinate to it.
The existence of an appellate remedy therefore excludes ordinary revisional jurisdiction under Section 115.
This restriction reflects the different functions of appeal and revision. Where the legislature has expressly provided an appellate procedure, that procedure must ordinarily be followed rather than bypassed through revision.
Does Filing a Revision Automatically Stay the Suit?
No.
Section 115(3) makes it clear that a revision does not automatically operate as a stay of the suit or proceeding before the subordinate court.
Proceedings may continue unless the High Court specifically grants a stay.
Therefore, filing a revision petition by itself does not suspend the proceedings or prevent the subordinate court from proceeding further.
A separate order of stay is required.
This rule prevents revision petitions from automatically delaying civil litigation merely because supervisory jurisdiction has been invoked.
What Happens If the Main Suit Is Decided During the Revision?
The subsequent disposal of the main suit may affect the maintainability or practical relevance of a pending revision.
In Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2009 SC 4, the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where the suit itself had subsequently been dismissed on merits and an appeal against that decision was pending.
The Court observed, in the circumstances of the case, that the earlier revision concerning an issue decided during the suit had become infructuous after disposal of the suit on merits.
The decision illustrates that revisional jurisdiction must be considered in the context of subsequent developments in the underlying proceeding.
If the controversy raised in revision loses independent significance because the suit has already been finally decided, the revision may no longer require adjudication.
What Is Material Irregularity Under Section 115 CPC?
The expression “material irregularity” refers to a serious defect in the manner in which jurisdiction has been exercised.
It does not mean every procedural error.
A subordinate court may make an incorrect decision while still acting within its jurisdiction. Such an error does not automatically justify revision.
Material irregularity becomes relevant when the procedural or legal defect substantially affects the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.
Therefore, the focus is on the manner of exercising jurisdiction rather than merely the correctness of the final conclusion.
What Is the Role of the High Court in Revision?
The High Court performs a supervisory rather than ordinary appellate function under Section 115.
Its role includes ensuring that subordinate courts:
- do not assume jurisdiction that the law does not confer;
- do not refuse to exercise jurisdiction legally vested in them;
- exercise their jurisdiction according to law; and
- do not commit material irregularities that affect the lawful exercise of judicial authority.
At the same time, the High Court must respect the statutory limitations placed upon revisional jurisdiction.
This balance protects both judicial supervision and the finality of ordinary proceedings.
The question of jurisdiction is particularly significant in civil procedure because a court must possess the legal authority to entertain and determine the matter before it. Section 9 CPC lays down the general foundation of the jurisdiction of civil courts to try suits of a civil nature unless their cognisance is expressly or impliedly barred.
Can Revisional Power Be Exercised Repeatedly Through Different Proceedings?
The exercise of revisional jurisdiction may also affect the availability of subsequent remedies concerning the same order.
In Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, the Supreme Court considered the relationship between revisional jurisdiction and subsequent proceedings before the High Court.
The decision emphasised that once the High Court has exercised its revisional jurisdiction and adjudicated upon the matter, the same order should not ordinarily be reopened through another jurisdiction merely to obtain a fresh reconsideration of the same controversy.
This principle supports judicial finality and discourages repeated challenges to the same order through different procedural routes.
Why Is Revision Important in Civil Procedure?
Revision performs an important supervisory function within the civil justice system.
Subordinate courts exercise jurisdiction conferred upon them by legislation. Section 115 provides a mechanism through which the High Court may ensure that those jurisdictional limits are respected.
The provision serves several purposes:
- Prevention of excess of jurisdiction: It prevents subordinate courts from exercising powers that have not been conferred upon them by law.
- Correction of failure to exercise jurisdiction: It provides supervision where a court wrongly declines to exercise authority legally vested in it.
- Control over material irregularities: It enables correction of serious illegality or material irregularity connected with the exercise of jurisdiction.
- Supervision over subordinate courts: It helps the High Court maintain judicial supervision within the limits prescribed by the CPC.
- Remedy in non-appealable matters: It provides limited judicial supervision in appropriate cases where an appellate remedy is unavailable.
At the same time, its limited scope prevents revision from becoming another ordinary appeal.
Difference Between Jurisdictional Error and Error of Law
An important distinction under Section 115 is the difference between a jurisdictional error and an ordinary error of law.
An error of law may arise when a court having proper jurisdiction incorrectly interprets or applies a legal rule.
A jurisdictional error goes further. It concerns the authority of the court to act, its refusal to exercise lawful authority, or the illegal or materially irregular manner in which that authority is exercised.
Not every erroneous legal conclusion therefore attracts Section 115.
The High Court must first determine whether the error falls within one of the jurisdictional categories specifically recognised by the provision.
The CPC also separately regulates objections to jurisdiction under Section 21 CPC, particularly objections relating to place of suing, pecuniary competence and territorial competence of an executing court.
Limitations on Revisional Jurisdiction
The power of revision under Section 115 is subject to several important limitations.
No Revision Where Appeal Lies
A decree or order that is appealable cannot ordinarily be challenged through revision.
Limited Interference With Interlocutory Orders
Orders passed during the course of proceedings cannot ordinarily be reversed unless the statutory final-disposal test is satisfied.
No Automatic Stay
A revision petition does not stop the subordinate proceeding unless the High Court specifically grants a stay.
No General Rehearing on Facts
The High Court is not expected to reassess evidence merely because a different factual conclusion is possible.
Discretionary Remedy
Even where a jurisdictional error exists, interference depends upon the circumstances and the proper exercise of judicial discretion.
These restrictions ensure that Section 115 remains a supervisory provision rather than becoming a parallel appellate procedure.
Conclusion
Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is an important supervisory remedy available before the High Court. Its primary purpose is to ensure that subordinate courts exercise their jurisdiction within the boundaries prescribed by law.
A revision may arise where a subordinate court exercises jurisdiction that it does not possess, refuses to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acts illegally or with material irregularity while exercising jurisdiction.
However, revisional jurisdiction is deliberately narrow. It cannot ordinarily be invoked where an appeal lies, it does not permit unrestricted reconsideration of evidence, and it does not provide a general remedy against every incorrect interlocutory order.
The High Court’s power under Section 115 is also discretionary. The provision therefore strikes a balance between supervisory control over subordinate courts and the need to prevent unnecessary interference with ordinary civil proceedings.
For civil procedure, the central principle is that revision is concerned primarily with jurisdiction, not merely with correctness. This distinction is essential for understanding the scope and operation of Section 115 CPC.
Join LawBhoomi’s 100K+ Community
