What is Revision Under Section 115 of CPC?

Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Civil Revision Grounds, Scope & Limits

Introduction

The concept of Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, serves as a supervisory power of the High Court to ensure that subordinate courts do not act beyond their jurisdiction or fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. Unlike appeals, a revision is not a right but a discretionary remedy to correct jurisdictional errors, illegality, or material irregularity committed by subordinate courts.

Legal Provision: Section 115 CPC

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. 

Provided that, where a person makes an application under this sub-section, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate court.  

Provided further that such application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate court such which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof and the High Court shall dispose of such application within six months. 

The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any, case decided by a court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject-matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court.  

If any application under sub-section (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them. 

No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under sub-section (2) by the District Court. 

Essential Ingredients of Section 115 CPC

To invoke revision under Section 115, the following three core conditions must be satisfied:

Scope and Objective of Revision

Revision is a supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court to:

The scope of the Revision petition is very limited. Section 115 of C.P.C. applies only to cases involving the illegal assumption, non-exercise, or the irregular exercise of jurisdiction. [2022  CLC  1552]

The High Court under Revisional jurisdiction is fully competent to examine the record of any subordinate Court and, if any jurisdictional error towards the passing of any order is found, then to cure the same. [2016  CLCN  67 Lahore-High-Court]

Revisional jurisdiction does not extend to an order passed by a lower court in exercise of its discretion unless it is shown that the discretion has been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily. An erroneous finding on a point of fact or even of law is not relatable to the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower court and does not become amenable to the exercise of revisional power under this section. It can be interfered with only when found fanciful or arbitrary. [PLD 1970 S.C. 139]

When Revision Can Be Filed

Revision can be filed in the High Court only when:

Who can file a Revision:

A person who is a necessary party and whose rights and interests are adversely affected by a decree and who was not heard is competent to invoke the revisional power of the High Court after establishing his bona fide and the rights and interests that he possessed.

A party to litigation or a non-party can bring to the notice of the High Court a state of things attracting the exercise of the High Court's jurisdiction in revision. A revision petition by one of the parties in the lower Court can be competently filed. The principal office of a corporation can file a revision petition. 

Revision by legal representative:

Revision petition doesn't need to bear the signatures of all the legal representatives. Signatures of the counsel on their behalf are sufficient. Even one of the legal representatives can move the revision petition competently. Officials of the Corporate Body, if aggrieved, are entitled to file a revision.

Record Summoned without Stay:

Record summoned by the revisional court without issuing a direction as to the stay of proceedings. The court below is not obliged to stop proceedings even if informed of the institution of an appeal/revision and of the summoning of the record. 

Exercise of Revisional Power Suo Motu:

High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction suo motu at any time, if the same fosters the cause of justice and dictates of justice so demand. High Court can suo motu interfere where subordinate court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It has ample power to see the legality or illegality of the impugned order. No limitation is prescribed in the case of exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction. High Court can exercise suo motu revisions power even after the expiry of limitation or despite the fact that revision filed by an aggrieved party is likely to fail on any technical point; court can decide revision on merits even if the petitioner remains absent having been served. 

In cases where there has been a bona fide (genuine) mistake, the High Court is expected to decide the matter on its merits. The law prioritizes decisions based on substance rather than technicalities, especially when such technicalities obstruct the course of justice. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is primarily a supervisory function between the High Court and the subordinate courts. However, litigants are entitled to point out any jurisdictional or legal errors committed by the lower courts.

Even if a revision petition is likely to fail on technical grounds, the High Court retains the suo motu power to examine the legality and validity of the impugned order. Once the case record is before the High Court, nothing prevents it from reviewing the matter to determine whether the lower court's judgment is lawful. If any material defect is found, the High Court may correct the error.

Nevertheless, if the trial court’s order is just and fair and justice has already been served, the High Court should not interfere merely for formality. For example, an order passed under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act—although not appealable—can be set aside suo motu by the High Court if it was passed without lawful jurisdiction.

In a case where the plaintiff, an uneducated woman, could not cross-examine the defendant's witnesses due to her counsel's absence, the High Court rightly directed the trial court to recall those witnesses and provide an opportunity for cross-examination. This upheld the principles of fairness and natural justice.

If the judgment of the lower appellate court is barred by the principle of res judicata, the High Court may exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside that judgment and restore the decision of the trial court.

Suo motu jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C., can be exercised by High Court or the District Court in a case where a Revision petition has been filed after prescribed period of limitation depending on the discretion of the Court because exercise of Revisional jurisdiction in any form is discretionary---Suo motu jurisdiction can be exercised, if the conditions for its exercise are satisfied---Revision al jurisdiction is pre-eminently and in essence corrective and supervisory, therefore, there is absolutely no harm if the Court seized of a Revision petition exercises its suo motu jurisdiction to correct the errors of jurisdiction committed by a subordinate Court. [2021  CLC  1696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT]

Limitation for Revision Petition

Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) prescribes a specific limitation period of 90 days for filing a revision petition. According to Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908, this is considered a special law, and therefore, the general provisions of the Limitation Act—such as Section 5, which allows for condonation of delay—do not apply to revision petitions filed under Section 115 CPC.

In the judicial system, limitation laws play a crucial role in defining the time frame within which legal proceedings must be initiated. The Limitation Act, 1908, includes remedial provisions like Sections 5, 12, and 14, which allow courts to extend the limitation period under certain circumstances. However, such extension is only possible where the law specifically makes those provisions applicable.

In many provisions of the CPC, the Limitation Act is expressly made applicable, allowing courts to condone delays if the party shows sufficient cause. But in the case of civil revision under Section 115 CPC, no such extension is permitted. The Limitation Act is not applicable under Section 29 of the Act because Section 115 CPC lays down its own limitation rules as a special law.

This principle was reaffirmed in the case of PLD 2023 Peshawar 64, where the Peshawar High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to revision petitions under Section 115 CPC, and courts cannot condone delay on equitable or discretionary grounds.

Key Points on Revision

Objection of Jurisdiction:

A party that has actively participated in court proceedings without raising any objection to the court's jurisdiction cannot later challenge that jurisdiction through a revision petition. If the issue of jurisdiction was not raised before the trial court, it cannot be introduced for the first time during revisional proceedings before the High Court.

Furthermore, a suit should not be dismissed solely on the ground that one of the reliefs sought falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of a special law or enactment. Unless the bar of jurisdiction is properly pleaded and established during trial, it cannot be allowed to defeat the claim at the revisional stage.

Point Settled in Revision

When a legal point that arises during the pendency of a suit is decided and settled by the revisional court, that issue cannot be reopened or re-agitated in an appeal against the final decree. Once the High Court gives a decision in revision, and that judgment stands or is not challenged through review or appeal, it attains finality. Moreover, if a High Court’s judgment is later reviewed and set aside, it is treated as if it never existed from the outset.

Mixed Question of Law and Fact

A plea that involves a mixed question of law and fact, which was not raised before the courts below, cannot be entertained for the first time in a revision petition before the High Court. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited and cannot be used to raise new factual issues or complex mixed pleas that require evidence or findings of fact.

Normally High Court in Revisional jurisdiction is slow in interfering in concurrent findings of two courts below but where there is prima facie misreading as well departure from settled principles of law High Court is always competent to disturb such concurrent findings. [2022  YLR  1531 KARACHI]

Grounds for Filing a Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908

Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked only in specific circumstances. The section is designed to correct jurisdictional errors committed by subordinate courts, not to function as a substitute for appeal.

Statutory Grounds for Revision

A revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable only on the following three grounds:

• Where the subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
• Where the subordinate court has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law; or
• Where the subordinate court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

1. Exercise of Jurisdiction Not Vested by Law

When a court assumes and exercises jurisdiction that it legally does not possess, it commits a jurisdictional error. The only remedy against such an order is a revision.

Examples:

• Entertaining an appeal against a non-appealable order.
• Hearing a suit or appeal in a matter where jurisdiction is expressly barred by statute.

2. Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction Vested by Law

When a court refuses to exercise a jurisdiction that is legally vested in it, its refusal is revisable.

Examples:

• Failure to decide or adjudicate a matter pending before it.
• Refusal to entertain a plaint or application without legal justification.
• Wrongful rejection or delay of an interim relief or stay order despite having authority to grant it.

Such inaction, despite having the power to act, invites revisional interference.

3. Acting Illegally or With Material Irregularity in Exercise of Jurisdiction

If a court, while exercising lawful jurisdiction, violates procedural rules, misapplies the law, or commits gross irregularities, it acts illegally or with material irregularity.

Examples:

• Passing an order without any supporting evidence.
• Misapplying or failing to apply the correct legal provision.
• Deciding a matter without affording an opportunity of hearing to one or more parties.

Explanation:

If a court, though vested with jurisdiction, violates a mandatory procedural rule or acts contrary to principles of natural justice, it becomes liable to correction under this clause.

Understanding Jurisdictional Errors

(a) Not Every Error is a Jurisdictional Error

As emphasized in case law, not every irregularity or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction renders the order void. Mere misreading of evidence or errors in legal interpretation, without more, do not amount to jurisdictional defects.

"Wrong appraisal of evidence is not a ground for revision under Section 115 CPC."

Unless the court lacks jurisdiction, fails to exercise it, or violates mandatory law, the High Court will not interfere merely because it would have reached a different conclusion.

Case Law:

AIR 1992 SC 1318 – Held that where a subordinate court acts contrary to the procedure laid down by statute and exceeds its jurisdiction, the High Court is bound to intervene.

Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar – It was held that where a court has jurisdiction over a matter, its decision—even if erroneous in fact or law—does not amount to a jurisdictional error unless it leads to assumptions of power not conferred by law.

Determination of Jurisdiction

When determining whether a court has jurisdiction, the averments in the plaint are considered—not the defence. Parties cannot, by their conduct or agreement, confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks it in law. For example:

• Paying costs or not raising objections at the right time does not bar a party from raising jurisdictional objections later—unless they are precluded by waiver under certain circumstances.

Errors of Jurisdiction vs. Errors Within Jurisdiction

A vital distinction exists between:

• Errors of Jurisdiction: When a court lacks the legal authority to decide a matter or misuses it.
• Errors Within Jurisdiction: When a court, though having jurisdiction, makes an error in applying the law or appreciating evidence.

Only errors of jurisdiction are revisable under Section 115 CPC.

For example:

• If a court refuses to allow additional evidence due to the party's own negligence, it is an error within jurisdiction—not revisable.

However:

• If the refusal stems from a misunderstanding of the legal right to produce such evidence, and leads to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, a revision may lie.

Inherent Power of High Court:

High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, could convert an Appeal, ca onstitutional petition, or a revision to any other remedy.

Appeal and Revision: Distinction:

Whole of controversy, in entirety of factual and legal issues involved is open before appellate authority in first Appeal. Appellate authority can, if it so deems appropriate, substitute its own decision for that of the forum whose decision is being appealed against. Revision does not operate in such broad terms, and it is confined to considering decisions under challenge within a more restricted scope.

Conclusion

Section 115 CPC serves as a powerful tool in the hands of the High Court to maintain the purity of judicial proceedings by checking arbitrary or illegal exercise of jurisdiction by subordinate courts. However, its application is narrow and discretionary, meant to prevent miscarriage of justice rather than to serve as a substitute for appeal.

Litigants must approach revision cautiously, ensuring the case falls strictly within the bounds of jurisdictional error, illegality, or irregularity, or else risk rejection on maintainability grounds.