Report No. 14

17. Civil Revisions

1. Revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts.-

The powers of the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction over the proceedings of subordinate civil courts arise principally under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 or under corresponding provisions in the laws of the erstwhile Part B States. High Courts have also the power of superintendence over subordinate civil courts under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Under section 115 of the Code, the High Court has power to call for the record of any case decided by any subordinate civil court and in which no appeal lies thereto (to the High Court), and to revise the order if such subordinate court appears to have-

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

2. Revisions-A source of delay.-

As a large number of revision applications to the High Courts are stated to be without substance and filed principally for the purpose of delaying the conclusion of the litigation, the question arises whether the revisional jurisdiction should be continued.

3. Figures not informative.-

The figures of revision applications which are given in the annual reports on the administration of justice issued by the different High Courts show only the annual institutions, disposals and pendency. They do not give any information as to the nature of the applications, the law under which they are filed or the general result of their disposal. Nor do these figures make it possible for us to draw any inference as regards the time taken for their disposal. We have, however, been able to collect some informative data in respect of these proceedings for the years 1952 to 1954.

The Table set out below shows, among other things, the manner in which these revision applications under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and other provisions of law were disposed of in the year 1954 in most of the States. In the case of some States, we have not been able to obtain the figures of applications under section 115 of the Code and other provisions separately.

Table

State	Particulars of the Application	Pending at the beginning of the year	Instituted during the year	Total for disposal	Summarily dismissed	Confirmed	Reversed	Otherwise disposed of	Total disposal	Pending at the end of the year	Remarks
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Andhra	Under sec. 115, C.P.C.	891	370	1261	142	69	7	1	219	1042
	Other civil revisions	467	223	690	48	50	11	3	112	578
	Total	1358	593	1951	190	119	18	4	331	1620
Assam	Unde sec. 115, C.P.C.	10	52	62	15	14	14	2	45	17
	Other civil revisions	6	23	29	3	9	3	..	15	14
	Total	16	75	91	18	23	17	2	60	31
Bihar	Under sec. 115, C.P.C.	516	977	1493	546	293	152	29	1020	473
	Other civil revisions	283	158	441	75	54	32	6	167	274
	Total	799	1135	1934	621	347	184	35	1187	747
Bombay	Under sec. 115, C.P.C. Othe civil revisions Total	708	2078	2786	1245	317	145	4	1711	1075
Madhya Pradesh	Under sec. 115, revisions	344	623	967	351	173	79	28	631	336
	Other civil revisions	187	359	546	148	97	49	28	322	224
	Total	531	982	1513	499	270	128	56	953	560
Madras	Under sec. 115, C.P.C. Other civil revisions Total	31103	1802	4905	605	884*	219	118	3273**	1632	*Disposals after hearing **1447 transferred to Andhra High Court.
Mysore	Under sec. 115, C.P.C.	139	374	513	1	225	58	9	293	220
	Other civil revisions	188	318	579	2	199	51	26	276	230
	Total	327	692	1092	3	424	109	35	560	450
Orissa	Under sec. 115, C.P.C.	81	108	249	43	125	48	1	217	32
	Other civil revisions	85	45	130	1	29	6	1	37	93
	Total	166	213@	379	44	154	54	2	254	125	@ Includes 7 restored case
Punjab	Under sec. 115, C.P.C.	337	848	1185	...	...	...	...	840	345
	Other civil revisions
	Total
Uttar Pradesh	Under sec. 115, C.P.C.	2690	944	3634	279	432	55	65	831	2803
	Other civil revisions	1926	726	2652	211	306	34	10	601	2051
	Total	4616	1670	6286	490	738	89	115	1432	4854
West Bengal	Under sec. 115, C.P.C.	1978	2181	4163	...	...	...	...	2021	2122
	Other civil Revisions
	Total

Note.- The figures furnished in this Table have been taken from the reports the administration of justice published by the various High Courts.

4. Large number of petitions unsuccessful.-

The statement shows that over fifty per cent. of these applications are dismissed summarily by the High Courts and that the percentage of ultimate success is very low even out of those in which a rule nisi is issued. For instance, in Bihar, out of 1,020 applications under section 115 of the Code disposed of in 1954, 546 were dismissed summarily and out of the rest the rule was made absolute only in 152 applications. In Bombay, out of a total of 1,711 applications disposed of in the same year, as many as 1,245 applications were summarily dismissed and orders were reversed only in 145 applications.

In Madhya Pradesh, the total number of applications disposed of was 631 out of which 351 were summarily dismissed and the orders were reversed only in 79 applications. In Madras, excluding 1,447 applications transferred in that year to Andhra, 1,826 applications were disposed of, out of which 605 were summarily dismissed and the orders were reversed only in 219 applications.

5. Petitions from interlocutory orders (Stays and Delays).-

As already stated, the figures do not furnish any information as to the nature of these revision applications. But an examination of the decided cases shows that many are made against interlocutory orders passed by the subordinate courts in pending proceedings. Considerable delays arise in the disposal of the proceedings in the course of which these revisions against interlocutory orders are filed. When a rule nisi is issued, the proceeding in the lower court is generally stayed and its further progress is held up during the pendency of the petition in the High Court.

Further, whenever a rule is issued on such applications, the record of the case is generally called for from the subordinate courts so that, even when no order of stay has been made, the subordinate court cannot proceed in the absence of the record and, thus, there is, in effect, an automatic stay of proceedings. The delays which arise are graphically described by the Judicial Reforms Committee of West Bengal:1

1. Report p. 13.

"Suits tried in the mufassil are constantly stayed pending the disposal of revisional applications and appeals from interlocutory orders by this Court. It was said in jest recently that half the records of the Alipore Courts are permanently in the High Court. Many a true word is spoken in jest and unfortunately there is much truth in this remark. Orders made by the Courts at Alipore are constantly challenged during the progress of suits with the result that such suits are held up frequently for months and even longer until this Court has dealt with the matters in controversy."

We were informed of a case in which a stay was granted by the High Court in Calcutta in 1951 and in which for some reason the revision application was not disposed of till 1956. The proceedings in the court below were held up in the meanwhile.

6. Avoidance of automatic stays.-

We have been informed that a rule has recently been "framed by the Calcutta High Court which provides, that when upon the admission of an appeal the records of the subordinate court are called for, that court should send up not the original record but only copies of relevant papers compendiously called the "copy records" so that the lower court might be free to proceed with the case before it. It is said that the rule has had the effect of preventing to a large extent the interruption of the proceedings in the subordinate courts. It appears that similar rules have been made by some other High Courts also.

7. Though such rules may mitigate the evil of what has been called above an automatic stay of proceedings, there will still remain revision petitions in which stays are obtained. It has to be remembered, as stated by a senior Chief Justice that-

"in the great majority of cases, applications in revision against interlocutory orders are made by judgment-debtors and the whole object of such applications is to hold up the execution case as long as possible."

8. Extent of delays.-

The extent to which the original proceeding might be held up for an unconscionable length of time by resorting to the expedient of filing a revision petition will appear from the Table on next page showing the number of applications pending in the High Courts on the 1st of January 1957 according to the year of their institution.

Table

Name of the State	1945 and earlier	1946	1947	1948	1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956	Total
Andhra Pradesh (A)	6	...	2	5	6	6	34	63	70	428	1374	1583	3577
Assam	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	7	25	32
Bihar(B)	...	...	..	1	...	...	...	4	41	110	330	554	1042
Kerala	*1	...	..	...	...	..	2	1	3	27	74	418	526
Madhya Pradesh	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	13	16	30	81	676	816
Madras	...	...	...	...	...	3	1	8	19	62	312	955	1360
Mysore(C)	...	...	...	...	...	...	1	1	8	96	300	630	1360
Orissa	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	9	63	159	232
Punjab	...	...	...	...	...	...	3	34	14	267	206	339	989
Rajasthan	...	...	...	...	...	2	8	23	99	182	246	376	936
Uttar Pradesh	2**	5	4	11	51	118	703	715	778	786	913	1222	5278
West Bengal	...	...	1	...	5	4	5	30	88	352	679	2503	3667

Note.-*. I of 1944.

**. I of 1944 and I of 1945

(A) The figures shown against this State Include the pendency received from the erstwhile High Court of Hyderabad.

(B)Includes the pendency in the Nagpur and Rajkot Benches.

(C) Does not include the receipts by transfer as a result of reorganisation of States.

The figures furnished in this Table have been supplied to us by the High Court. If one assumes that stay orders were made in about fifty per cent. of these applications, they reveal an alarming state of affairs when one remembers that finally about eighty per cent. of these applications are unsuccessful.

9. Proposal to curtail right of revision.-

Since a large number of these revision applications is filed against interlocutory orders, we invited opinion through our questionnaire on a proposal that the right of revision against interlocutory orders should be drastically curtailed and that revision should be restricted only to cases falling within clause (a) of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and not be permitted in cases falling under clauses (b) and (c) of that section.

Opposition to curtailment (Value of revisional jurisdiction.).- Although there was general agreement that many of these applications are lacking in substance and are filed with the sole object of delaying the proceedings, the proposal made by us met with general opposition. Dealing with the question of curtailment of the right of revision in respect of interlocutory orders, an experienced Chief Justice stated that "it is not unoften that a very wrong order is made. If it be made impossible to challenge the order immediately and have it set aside and if the error is left to be corrected in the appeal from the final order if and when such an appeal is taken, the intermediate proceedings will necessarily all be on an erroneous basis and it can hardly be just to compel the parties to submit to the order without any change of instant redress".

10. An alternative suggestion.-

It was alternatively proposed that in such cases, in lies of a revision to the High Court, the aggrieved party might be given a right of appeal to a lower appellate court in cases in which the orders made were such as would lead to the whole proceedings being conducted on an erroneous basis, or where the order was one which went to the root of the proceedings. This, however, appeared merely to substitute one type of proceeding for another leaving the right of revision to the High Court against the order in appeal still open to the party concerned.