RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS versus ASHIYAL BEEVI

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 26-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 697 : 2023 INSC 861
697
CASE DETAILS
RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS
v.
ASHIYAL BEEVI
(Civil Appeal No. 6232 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND 
MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether a revision u/s.115, CPC is 
maintainable against an order of the subordinate Court rejecting on merits an 
application for review of an appealable decree passed in a civil suit.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.115 – Exercise of revisional powers:
Held: Exercise of revisional powers cannot be claimed as of right – It 
is a discretionary power – Revisional Court is not bound to interfere merely 
because any of the three conditions, as laid down in s.115 for exercise of 
such power, is satisﬁ ed – The Court, exercising revisional powers, must bear 
in mind, inter alia whether it would be appropriate to exercise such power 
considering the interlocutory character of the order, the existence of another 
remedy to an aggrieved party by way of an appeal, from the ultimate order 
or decree in the proceeding, or by a suit, and the general equities of the case 
– Where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should 
be entertained u/s.115 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 ﬁ le 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 ﬁ led – In the present case, the revision 
of the respondent-plaintiﬀ  against rejection of her application for review of 
an appealable decree ought not to have been entertained by the High Court 
– Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside. [Paras 21, 28 
and 29]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
698
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII, rr.1, 4(2), 7; Or. XLIII, 
r.1(w):
Held: From the provisions of Or.XLVII of the CPC it is clear that an 
order rejecting a review application is not appealable. [Para 19]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.115; Or. XLI, r.22 – Reasons for 
revisional court not to entertain a revision against an order rejecting on 
merits an application for review of an appealable decree – discussed.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon AIR 1964 SC 497 : [1964] SCR 
409; DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 6 SCC 782 : [2012] 5 
SCR 583; Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat 
(1969) 2 SCC 74 : [1970] 1 SCR 322 – relied on.
Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur (1987) 3 SCC 711 : [1987] 3 
SCR 552; Srinivasiah v. Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Store AIR 1999 SC 
462; Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises v. Union of India (2002) 3 SCC 692 
: [2002] 2 SCR 298; The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics 
Ltd. And another v. Arijit Prasad Tarway (1972) 3 SCC 195; Prem Bakshi 
v. Dharam Dev (2002) 2 SCC 2 : [2002] 1 SCR 103; Rajender Singh v. Lt. 
Governor; Andaman & Nocobar Islands & Others (2005) 13 SCC 289 : 
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 1042 – referred to.
Punjab National Bank v. Shri U.P. Mehra AIR 2004 Del. 135; B. 
Subbarao v. Yellala Maram Satyanarayana AIR 1961 AP 502; Arya Insurance 
Co. Ltd. v. Lala Channoolal AIR 1957 All 400; Thakur Singh v. Bhaironlal
AIR 1956 Raj 113 – referred to. 
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6232 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2017 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRPNP No. 1342 of 2007.
Appearances:
A. Sirajudeen Sr. Adv., Ms. N. Annapoorani, Adv. for the Appellants.
699
V. Prabhakar, Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Nj Ramchandar, R. Gowrishankar, 
S. Rajappa, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1.  Leave granted.
2.  This is defendants’ appeal against the order of the Madurai Bench 
of Madras High Court (in short, ‘the High Court’), dated 12.09.2017, passed 
in C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No. 1342 of 2007, by which the revision of the 
plaintiﬀ -respondent was allowed, the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the 
court of First Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli in I.A. No. 207 of 2001 in 
O.S. No. 276 of 1992 was set aside, I.A. No. 207 of 2001 was allowed and 
the decree dated 21.11.1996 passed in O.S. No. 276 of 1992 was modiﬁ ed.
Factual Matrix
3. The responde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.