SHIV SHAKTI COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY, NAGPUR versus M/S. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 17-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHIV SHAKTI COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY, NAGPUR 
v. 
MIS. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS AND ORS. 
APRIL 17, 2003 
[SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJJT PASAYA T, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 115-Amendment-Ejfect of-
Suit or other proceeding-Interim order-Revision petition-Maintainability 
C of-Held: Legislative intention is that interim orders cannot be subject matter 
of revision under Section I I 5-Hence revision petition not maintainable-
Amendment relates to procedure, no person has vested right in a course of 
procedure but only right of proceeding in the manner prescribed-If by a 
statutory change the mode of procedure is altered the parties are to proceed 
according to the altered mode, without exception unless there is a different 
D stipulation-Further section 6 not applicable as no substantive right available 
to party seeking revision under Section I I 5-General Clauses Act, 1897, 
Section 6. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
E 
Legislative intent-It is to be gathered from the language used-
F 
G 
H 
Construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words 
or which results in rejection of words as meaningless to be avoided 
Principle of construction-CaSlls omissus and reading statute as 
whole-Discussed 
legal Maxims: 
"Ad ed quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur"-Meaning of 
Words and Phrases: 
Appeal-Meaning of 
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was amet1ded by ~ection 
12(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999. Appellants filed 
revision petition before the High Court impugning the interim order. High 
762 
-
SHIV SHAKTI COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY>. SW fRAJ DEVELOPERS 
763 
' 
Court held that the revision petition was not maintainable because of amended A 
Section ll5, as had an order been passed in favour of the party applying for 
revision, same would not have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. 
Hence the present appeals. 
Appellants contended that the High Court erred in disposing of the B 
revision petition as not maintainable as the amended provisions do not apply to 
petitions which were admitted before the amendment; appeals and revisions 
stand on a parallel footing and are vested rights in the appellant/applicant and 
as such the amended provisions would not have any application; the applications 
for injunction and the like which form subject matter of the revisions relate 
to the expression 'other proceeding' and even ifthe amended provisions apply, C 
disposal of the revision petition would have meant final dismissal of such 'other 
proceeding'; that Section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act, does not convey any 
meaning; that the legislature always saved pending proceedings in terms of 
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and, therefore, proceedings which 
were pending before the High Court on the date of amendment are clearly 
outside the effect of amendment; and that even if it is conceded for the sake of D 
arguments that there is no specific provision in that regard, it is clearly a 
case of casus omissus. 
Respondents contended that plain meaning of provisions of a statute have 
to be given full effect and that whenever the legislature intended to keep the E 
pending proceedings out of the purview of amended provisions, it was 
specifically so provided. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. High Courts were right in the conclusion about non- F 
maintainability of revision applications. (778-A) 
1.2. Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 the question 
is with regard to whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision 
would have given finality to suit or other proceeding, if the answer is 'yes' G 
then the revision is maintainable, but on the contrary, ifthe answer is 'no' 
then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is of 
interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be 
maintainable. The legislative intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are 
interim in nature, cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115. 
There is marked distinction in language of Section 97(3) of the Old amendment H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A Act and Section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act. While in the former, there 
was clear legislative intent to save applications admitted or pending before the 
amendment came into force, such an intent is significantly absent in Section 
32(2)(i). The amendment relates to procedure

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.