LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is maintainable against an order of a subordinate court rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree passed in a civil suit.
CASE TYPE: Civil Law, specifically concerning the jurisdiction of revisional courts.
Case Name: Rahimal Bathu & Others vs. Ashiyal Beevi
Judgment Date: 26 September 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 861
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Manoj Misra, J.
Can a High Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to overturn a lower court’s decision that rejected a review application of an appealable decree? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent judgment, clarifying the limits of revisional powers when an appealable decree is already in place. This case revolves around a property dispute and the subsequent legal challenges, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court to settle the issue of maintainability of revision petitions in such cases. The judgment was authored by Justice Manoj Misra.
Case Background
The case originated from a property dispute. Ashiyal Beevi (the respondent) filed a suit (O.S. No. 276 of 1992) seeking to be declared the exclusive owner of a property. Alternatively, she claimed a one-sixth share. The property was originally owned by her grandmother, Fathima Beevi. Ashiyal Beevi claimed she purchased the property from her grandmother via a sale deed dated 14 November 1990.
The defendants (the appellants), including Rahimal Bathu, were Fathima Beevi’s daughter-in-law and her children. The plaintiff contended that Fathima Beevi’s son, Khaja Mohideen (Rahimal Bathu’s husband), had fraudulently obtained a gift deed for the property on 24 April 1982. This gift deed, according to the plaintiff, was never acted upon and was obtained through undue influence. The plaintiff argued that even if the gift deed was valid, Khaja Mohideen died before Fathima Beevi, and thus Fathima Beevi retained a one-sixth share, which was transferred to the plaintiff through the sale deed.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 24 April 1982 | Fathima Beevi executes a gift deed in favor of Khaja Mohideen. |
| 31 May 1988 | Khaja Mohideen (husband of the first defendant) passes away. |
| 14 November 1990 | Fathima Beevi executes a sale deed in favor of the plaintiff, Ashiyal Beevi. |
| 1992 | Ashiyal Beevi files O.S. No. 276 of 1992 seeking ownership of the property. |
| 21 November 1996 | Trial court decrees the suit for one-sixth share in the suit property. |
| 20 December 2006 | Trial court rejects the plaintiff’s review application (I.A. No. 207 of 2001). |
| 12 September 2017 | Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allows the plaintiff’s revision petition, modifying the trial court’s decree. |
| 26 September 2023 | Supreme Court of India sets aside the High Court’s order, ruling that a revision is not maintainable against rejection of review of appealable decree. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court initially ruled that the property was gifted to Fathima Beevi by her father, declared the gift deed of 24 April 1982 invalid, and the sale deed of 14 November 1990 valid. However, the trial court only granted the plaintiff a one-sixth share in the property.
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decree, the plaintiff filed a review application (I.A. No. 207 of 2001), arguing that the entire property should have been decreed in her favor. The trial court rejected this review application on 20 December 2006.
The plaintiff then filed a civil revision petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Section 115 of the CPC. The High Court allowed the revision on 12 September 2017, setting aside the trial court’s order, allowing the review application, and modifying the decree to grant the plaintiff full ownership of the property.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which deals with the High Court’s power of revision. This section allows the High Court to review cases decided by subordinate courts under certain conditions, such as jurisdictional errors or procedural irregularities.
The judgment also considers Order XLVII of the CPC, which governs the process of review of judgments. Specifically, Rule 1 of Order XLVII allows for review applications, Rule 4 provides for rejection or granting of the review, and Rule 7 states that an order rejecting a review application is not appealable, while an order granting it can be challenged.
Section 115 of the CPC states:
“The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears— (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.”
Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC states:
“An order of the court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit.”
Arguments
Submissions on behalf of the appellants:
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision against an order that declined review of an appealable decree.
- Even if the revision was maintainable, the High Court could not modify the trial court’s decree, which was not challenged before it.
- If the trial court had made a jurisdictional error, the High Court should have sent the matter back for fresh consideration.
- If the High Court’s order stands, the defendants’ right to appeal under Section 96 of the CPC would be affected as the trial court’s decree would merge with the modified decree of the High Court.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent:
- No appeal lies against an order rejecting a review application (Order XLVII, Rule 7(1) of the CPC). The term “case” in Section 115 of the CPC is comprehensive and includes civil proceedings other than suits, making a revision against rejection of a review application maintainable.
- The Explanation to Section 115 of the CPC clarifies that “any case which has been decided” includes any order made or any order deciding an issue in a suit, making the expression all-inclusive.
- The High Court’s revisional powers under Section 115 of the CPC are wide enough to correct jurisdictional errors and pass orders necessary to serve justice.
- The trial court’s judgment was contradictory because if the gift deed was invalid and the sale deed was valid, the plaintiff should have been granted exclusive ownership. This error should have been corrected in review, and the High Court was justified in modifying the decree.
The respondent relied on several cases to support their arguments, including:
- Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon: To argue that the term “case” is of wide amplitude.
- Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat: To argue that the revisional jurisdiction is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.
- Srinivasiah v. Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Store: To argue that a court can exercise review jurisdiction if it proceeds on an incorrect assumption of fact.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellants’ Sub-Submissions | Respondents’ Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Maintainability of Revision |
|
|
| High Court’s Power to Modify Decree |
|
|
| Procedure if Error Exists |
|
|
| Impact on Right to Appeal |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether a revision under Section 115 of the 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?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a revision under Section 115 of the 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? | No, revision is not maintainable. | The Court held that when an appealable decree exists, the proper remedy against rejection of a review is to file an appeal against the original decree, not a revision. Allowing a revision would affect the right to appeal the original decree. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Authorities Table
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon [AIR 1964 SC 497] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The expression “case” used in Section 115 of the CPC is of wide amplitude and includes civil proceedings other than suits, and is not restricted to the entirety of the proceeding in a civil court. |
| Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat [1969 (2) SCC 74] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Revisional jurisdiction is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. |
| Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur [(1987) 3 SCC 711] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed | General principles governing exercise of revisional powers. |
| Srinivasiah v. Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Store [AIR 1999 SC 462] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed | Where a Court proceeds to decide a case on an incorrect assumption regarding a fact, there would be ample justification to exercise the review jurisdiction. |
| Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises v. Union of India [(2002) 3 SCC 692] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed | Rule 32 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, to the extent it restricted the scope of power of review vested under Section 18(3)(f) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 to non-appealable orders, violative of statutory provision and, therefore, bad. |
| The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. And another v. Arijit Prasad Tarway [(1972) 3 SCC 195] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed | High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court while exercising power under Section of 115 of the CPC. |
| Prem Bakshi v. Dharam Dev [(2002) 2 SCC 2] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed | An order by trial court holding it has no jurisdiction to proceed, or that suit is barred by limitation, would amount to a final decision and as such revisable. |
| Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor; Andaman & Nocobar Islands & others [(2005) 13 SCC 289] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed | The power of judicial review of its own order inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice; and courts should not hesitate to review their own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of justice so demands. |
| Punjab National Bank v. Shri U.P. Mehra [AIR 2004 Del. 135] | Delhi High Court | Discussed | Revision under Section 115 of the CPC was dismissed upon finding that there was no jurisdictional flaw in the order of the trial court. |
| B. Subbarao v. Yellala Maram Satyanarayana [AIR 1961 AP 502] | Andhra Pradesh High Court | Discussed | As there is no right of an appeal against rejection of a review application, the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC can be invoked. |
| Arya Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lala Channoolal [AIR 1957 All 400] | Allahabad High Court | Discussed | The CPC does not provide for an appeal against refusal of a review though an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(w) from an order granting a review is maintainable. However, an order rejecting the review may be brought into question in a revision. |
| Thakur Singh v. Bhaironlal [AIR 1956 Raj 113] | Rajasthan High Court | Discussed | Preliminary objection as to maintainability of revision against rejection of review was overruled. |
| DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 6 SCC 782] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Discussed situations arising in relation to orders passed in a review petition. |
The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Pertaining to the High Court’s power of revision.
- Order XLVII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Pertaining to review of judgments.
- Order XLIII Rule 1 (w), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Pertaining to appeals against orders granting review.
- Order XLI, Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Pertaining to objections to findings by the respondent in an appeal.
- Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Pertaining to appeals from original decrees.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision against an order that declined review of an appealable decree. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court should not have entertained the revision. |
| Appellants | Even if the revision was maintainable, the High Court could not modify the trial court’s decree, which was not challenged before it. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not modify the original decree in a revision petition. |
| Appellants | If the trial court had made a jurisdictional error, the High Court should have sent the matter back for fresh consideration. | Accepted. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should have remitted the matter back to the trial court if it found any jurisdictional error. |
| Appellants | If the High Court’s order stands, the defendants’ right to appeal under Section 96 of the CPC would be affected as the trial court’s decree would merge with the modified decree of the High Court. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that allowing the High Court’s order would prejudice the defendants’ right to appeal. |
| Respondent | No appeal lies against an order rejecting a review application (Order XLVII, Rule 7(1) of the CPC). The term “case” in Section 115 of the CPC is comprehensive and includes civil proceedings other than suits, making a revision against rejection of a review application maintainable. | Partially accepted. The Court agreed that “case” under Section 115 is wide, but held that the existence of an appealable decree changes the situation. |
| Respondent | The Explanation to Section 115 of the CPC clarifies that “any case which has been decided” includes any order made or any order deciding an issue in a suit, making the expression all-inclusive. | Partially accepted. The Court acknowledged this explanation, but held that it does not override the principle that a revision is not maintainable against rejection of a review of an appealable decree. |
| Respondent | The High Court’s revisional powers under Section 115 of the CPC are wide enough to correct jurisdictional errors and pass orders necessary to serve justice. | Partially accepted. The Court agreed that revisional powers exist but should not be used when an appealable decree is available. |
| Respondent | The trial court’s judgment was contradictory because if the gift deed was invalid and the sale deed was valid, the plaintiff should have been granted exclusive ownership. This error should have been corrected in review, and the High Court was justified in modifying the decree. | Rejected. The Court held that the proper remedy was to file an appeal against the original decree, not a revision. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon [AIR 1964 SC 497] | Cited to support the view that the term “case” under Section 115 of the CPC is of wide amplitude. However, the Court distinguished this case, stating that it did not involve an appealable decree. |
| Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat [1969 (2) SCC 74] | Cited to support the view that revisional jurisdiction is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. However, the Court clarified that this does not justify entertaining a revision against the rejection of a review of an appealable decree. |
| Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur [(1987) 3 SCC 711] | Discussed generally for principles governing revisional powers but not directly relevant to the core issue. |
| Srinivasiah v. Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Store [AIR 1999 SC 462] | Discussed to highlight that review jurisdiction can be exercised if a court proceeds on an incorrect assumption of fact, but not relevant to the core issue. |
| Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises v. Union of India [(2002) 3 SCC 692] | Discussed to highlight the scope of review powers, but not directly relevant to the core issue. |
| The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. And another v. Arijit Prasad Tarway [(1972) 3 SCC 195] | Discussed to highlight the limits of revisional jurisdiction, but not directly relevant to the core issue. |
| Prem Bakshi v. Dharam Dev [(2002) 2 SCC 2] | Discussed to highlight that certain orders of the trial court are revisable, but not directly relevant to the core issue. |
| Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor; Andaman & Nocobar Islands & others [(2005) 13 SCC 289] | Discussed to highlight the power of judicial review, but not directly relevant to the core issue. |
| Punjab National Bank v. Shri U.P. Mehra [AIR 2004 Del. 135] | Discussed as an example where the revision was dismissed for lack of jurisdictional error, but not directly relevant to the core issue. |
| B. Subbarao v. Yellala Maram Satyanarayana [AIR 1961 AP 502] | Discussed to show that some High Courts have held that revision is maintainable against rejection of review, but the Supreme Court disagreed with this view. |
| Arya Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lala Channoolal [AIR 1957 All 400] | Discussed to show that some High Courts have held that revision is maintainable against rejection of review, but the Supreme Court disagreed with this view. |
| Thakur Singh v. Bhaironlal [AIR 1956 Raj 113] | Discussed to show that some High Courts have held that revision is maintainable against rejection of review, but the Supreme Court disagreed with this view. |
| DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 6 SCC 782] | Followed to explain the different situations arising in relation to orders passed in a review petition. |
The Supreme Court held that while the term “case” under Section 115 of the CPC is broad, it does not justify entertaining a revision against the rejection of a review application when an appealable decree is already in place. The Court emphasized that the proper remedy in such cases is to file an appeal against the original decree.
The Court observed that if a revisional court modifies a trial court’s decree, the original decree merges into the revised one, thereby affecting the right of the aggrieved party to file an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.
The Court also noted that a party aggrieved by a finding of the trial court, even if the decree is in their favor, has the right to object to the adverse finding in an appeal under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the CPC. This right would be lost if the decree is modified by the revisional court.
The Supreme Court referenced DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [ (2012) 6 SCC 782], to clarify that if a review petition is dismissed, the original decree remains effective, and the remedy is to appeal against the original decree, not the order dismissing the review.
The Court stated that while revisional powers are available to correct jurisdictional errors, they are part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, as observed in Shankar Ramchandra [1969 (2) SCC 74].
The court stated that, “where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of the CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree.”
The court also stated that, “The proper remedy for the party whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits is to file 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 filed.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to maintain the integrity of the appellate process and prevent the circumvention of statutory remedies. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving the right to appeal against an original decree, which would be compromised if revisions against the rejection of review petitions were allowed. The Court also sought to avoid a situation where the merger of decrees would disadvantage parties.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Preservation of the right to appeal against the original decree | 40% |
| Avoiding merger of decrees that would prejudice the right to appeal | 30% |
| Ensuring the proper remedy is followed (appeal against the original decree) | 20% |
| Maintaining the integrity of the appellate process | 10% |
Final Order
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 12 September 2017. The Court restored the order of the trial court rejecting the review application and reinstated the original decree passed by the trial court.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment has significant implications for litigants and the scope of revisional powers under Section 115 of the CPC. The Supreme Court has clarified that:
- Revisions are not maintainable against the rejection of a review application if the original decree is appealable.
- The proper remedy is to file an appeal against the original decree.
- Revisional powers should not be used to circumvent the appellate process.
This ruling ensures that the appellate process is followed correctly and that the right to appeal is not compromised. It also emphasizes the importance of pursuing the correct legal remedies.
Flowchart: Challenging a Decree
The flowchart above summarizes the process to be followed when a decree is challenged.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rahimal Bathu vs. Ashiyal Beevi (2023) INSC 861 is a significant ruling that clarifies the limits of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. The Court has firmly established that a revision is not maintainable against the rejection of a review application if the original decree is appealable. This decision upholds the integrity of the appellate process and ensures that the right to appeal is preserved. By emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal remedies, the Supreme Court has provided clear guidance for future cases involving similar issues.
Source: Rahimal Bathu vs. Ashiyal Beevi