Whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is maintainable against an order rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree passed in a civil suit : Rahimal Bathu & Others v. Ashiyal Beevi (2023)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in Rahimal Bathu & Others v. Ashiyal Beevi (2023)

📌 Citation: 2023 INSC 861
📅 Date: 26 September 2023
🧑‍⚖️ Coram: Justices Manoj Misra and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
📂 Case: Civil Appeal (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8428 of 2018)

---

⚖️ Key Issue:

Whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is maintainable against an order rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree passed in a civil suit.

---

📜 Background:

• Plaintiff (Ashiyal Beevi) filed a civil suit for exclusive ownership or in the alternative, one-sixth share in a property.

• Trial court decreed one-sixth share to the plaintiff.

• Plaintiff filed a review petition, which was dismissed.

• Plaintiff then filed a revision under Section 115 CPC before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, which:

  • Set aside the dismissal of the review,

  • Allowed the review,

  • Modified the decree to declare plaintiff as absolute owner of the entire property.

• Defendants (appellants) challenged this modification by High Court in the Supreme Court.

---

🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court Ruling:

• The High Court acted beyond jurisdiction by modifying a trial court decree through revision.

• Review application dismissal of an appealable decree cannot be challenged via revision under Section 115 CPC.

• The appropriate remedy was to file a regular appeal against the trial court’s decree under Section 96 CPC, not a revision.

• The High Court's action prejudiced the right of the defendants to appeal and raise cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.

• Revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, and not to be exercised when an appealable decree already exists.

---

📚 Key Legal Principles Laid Down:

1. Revisional powers under Section 115 CPC are limited to jurisdictional errors and cannot substitute appellate jurisdiction.

2. When a review of an appealable decree is rejected, the remedy is appeal, not revision.

3. An order rejecting review does not cause merger; thus, original decree remains challengeable.

4. Time spent in review proceedings can be excluded when seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

5. Courts must avoid creating procedural anomalies—like modifying decrees in revision without appeal provisions for the other party.

---

🧾 Final Outcome:

• Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

• Set aside the High Court’s order that modified the trial court's decree.

• Preserved plaintiff’s right to file a delayed appeal, if necessary.

---

📌 Conclusion:

This ruling reinforces that revision jurisdiction is not a backdoor route to modify appealable decrees and maintains the sanctity of appellate processes. The judgment draws a clear line between review, appeal, and revision, ensuring procedural integrity.