AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 27

57. Restriction on revision against interlocutory orders.-We think that some restriction should be placed on revision applications against interlocutory orders. We have given anxious thought to this matter, but we have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to impose any greater restrictions than those proposed by the Law Commission in the Fourteenth Report1. These restrictions are, that no revision application shall lie against an interlocutory order unless either of the following conditions is satisfied:-

(i) that if the orders were made in favour of the applicant, it would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding, or

(ii) that the order, if allowed to stand, is likely to occasion a failure of justice or cause an irreparable injury2.

We may make it clear, that these restrictions are in addition to those imposed by the terms of section 115 itself, that is to say, a revision application against an interlocutory order must first fall within clause (a), (b) or clause (c) of that section, and then it should further satisfy either of the two conditions set out above.

1. 14th Report, Vol. 1.

2. See Appendix I, section 115.

58. Stay in revision-security.-The Law Commission proposed in the Fourteenth Report1, that a provision regarding stay of proceedings similar to Order XLI, rule 5 should be made in the case of revision applications. We do not think that any such provision is necessary. Unlike an appeal, the exercise of jurisdiction in a revision application under section 115 is a matter of discretion. Since the main jurisdiction rests upon the discretion of the Court, it is not necessary to expressly provide for any incidental matters like stay, etc. Powers of the High Court under the existing Code are wide enough to impose such terms as it considers just when granting stay.

1. 14th Report, Vol. I.

59. Calling for records in revision.-Connected with the question of revision application against an interlocutory order is the question of calling for the original record and proceedings from the lower court. If the original record and proceedings are called for from the lower court either before or immediately after the revision application is admitted, the further progress of the suit or other proceeding from which the revision application arises is automatically delayed and therefore unnecessarily held up. We, however, do not think that any statutory provision is necessary to regulate the circumstances in which the High Courts should call for the records and proceedings in a revision application against an interlocutory order. This matter may be best left to the discretion of the High Courts. We may, however, in this connection, invite attention to the practice prevailing in the Bombay High Court which is as follows1:-

"In revision applications from decrees and orders in cases which have been finally disposed of in the lower court, this Court (Bombay High Court) invariably calls for the original records and proceedings for disposal of the said application. In regard to revision applications against interlocutory orders, the records and proceedings are not called for unless the Court of its own motion or on an application of a party, orders them to be sent for; otherwise ordinarily certified copies of the relevant papers are considered sufficient for the disposal of the revision application."

1. Extracted from the reply of the Additional Registrar, Bombay High Court, to our letter asking for information on the subject.

60. Stay by the High Court in revision-real remedy.-The Law Commission has, in the Fourteenth Report1-2, made certain suggestions as to how delay resulting from stay granted by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction could be reduced. The real remedy, as observed in that Report, lies in the superior courts keeping in view the following essential rules in dealing with these revisions:-

(1) That the rule nisi should not be issued except upon a very careful and strict scrutiny.

(2) That where a stay is not granted, the records of the subordinate courts should not be called for and when the records are necessary, only copies of the records should be required to be produced.

(3) That whenever a rule nisi is granted and a stay order issued, every effort should be made to dispose of the revision application within two or three months.

1. 14th Report, Vol. I.

2. See also Civil Justice Committee (1924-25), Report, pp. 372-373, paras. 17-18.



Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys