APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 115 C. P. C. — REVISION IN DISTRICT COURT
IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE………………..
Civil Rev. No………………… of 19………………………..
U/s. 115 C. P. C.
A. B………………………………………….. Plaintiff/Applicant
versus
CD…………………………………….. Defendant/Respondent
Valuation of suit property: Rs…………………
Nature of Suit: Suit for injunction
Court fee paid on Revision Application: Rs…………………
Sir,
The Revision application against the order dated……………….. of the XVIII Additional
Munsif,……………….. in suit No………………… of 19……………….. is most respectfully
submitted on the following grounds:
GROUNDS OF REVISION
- Because the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him, in not
considering the amendment application in its proper and legal aspect. - Because the amendment sought does not purport to change the nature of the suit, it is a suit
for injunction against the defendant for restraining him from illegally closing the door, windows
and sky lights of the plaintiff and complainant after having to his notice the correct facts about
the nature of possession of the defendant over the servant heritage, asked to add a relief about
compensation as envisaged in S. 32 of the Easements Act and its illustration which directly
applies to the applicant’s case. The Learned Munsif has not given any consideration to this
contention of the applicant and has arbitrarily passed the impugned order. - Because the applicant has also sought to amend the site plan of the property about which the
relief of injunction is claimed. The learned, Munsif has not considered at all this part of the
proposed amendment and has evaded to give his decision thereon.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Revision application may be allowed, setting
aside the order of the learned Munsif and allowing the application for amendment of the
plaintiff.
Dated……………….. Counsel for the Plaintiff
CASE LAW
Section 115
HIGH COURT CANNOT REAPPRECIATE EVIDENCE AND CANNOT SET ASIDE
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF COURTS BELOW BY TAKING DIFFERENT VIEW OF
EVIDENCE.
It appears that both the Presiding Officers of both the Courts below have in fact inspected the
building and came to the firm finding that the building is old and is in a dilapidated condition
and, therefore, it needs reconstruction of the building and so the Order of eviction was passed
by the trial court and the same was affirmed by the lower appellate Court.
It is well settled position in law that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High
Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and cannot set aside the concurrent findings of the
Courts below by taking a different view of the evidence. The High Court is empowered only to
interfere with the findings of fact if the findings are perverse or there has been a nonappreciation or non-consideration of the material evidence on record by the Court below. Simply
because another view of the evidence may be taken is no ground by the High Court to interfere
in its revisional jurisdiction1.
JURISDICTION TO EXTEND TIME.
Trial Court had jurisdiction to extend the time under Section 148, C. P. C. on sufficient cause
being made out. Condition precedent to enable the High Court to exercise its revisional
jurisdiction under Section 115, C. P. C. was lacking2.
JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT.
High Court while exercising the jurisdiction is competent not only to see the irregular or illegal
exercise of jurisdiction but also to see to the legality or propriety of the order in question3.
EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION.
High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction could not interfere with the concurrent findings and
set aside the order of eviction4.
REVISION — MAINTAINABILITY.
Section 115
The maintainability of the revision depends upon two conditions firstly that it must relate to a
case decided by the Court subordinate to the High Court and secondly in connection with the
case decided, no appeal lies thereto.5
REVISION — MAINTAINABILITY.
Where the Court was merely postponing consideration of issue so that it may hear both parties
and decide matter it did not amount to case decided. Revision is maintainable.6
REVISION — MAINTAINABILITY.
Section 115, Order 38, Rule 1
Where in a suit seeking recovery of money, the plaintiff filed application seeking arrest before
judgement of the defendant and on appearance of the defendant the application of the plaintiff
was closed by the Court, against such order of the Court revision application was maintainable.7
REMEDY UNDER SECTION 151 NOT ONLY DISCRETIONARY BUT EQUITABLE.
The remedy under Section 115 is not only discretionary but at the same time it is equitable.8
INVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION ON QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF COURT
FEE.
Though defendants would ask for enquiry with reference to the value of the Court-fee payable
on the plaint, the defendants cannot have any grievance against the order overruling the
objection to get him entitled to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on question
whether the plaintiffs have paid adequate Court-fee on the plaint or not.9 - Masjid Kacha Tank Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammad, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 45.
- Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh, A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court 2073: 1989 (3) J. T.
582: 1989 Supp. (1) S.C. R. 17: 1989 (4) S.C.C. 403. - Rai Chand Jain v. Chandra Kanta Khosla, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 744: 1991
(1) S.C.C. 422: 1990 (4) J. T. 638. - Chandmal v. Firm Ram Chandra and Vishwanath, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court
1594: 1991 A.I.R. S.C. W. 1568: 1991 (2) J. T. 553: 1991 (3) S.C.C. 130. - Chunnilal v. Shanta Devi, AIR 2001 Raj. 76.
- Golikota Reddy v. Goli Raja Gopala Reddy, AIR 2001 AP 110.
- S. Selvarathinam v. Rajasekharan Nair, AIR 2001 Kerala 1.
- Caps & Containers v. Bank of Baroda, 2001 (1) CCC 56 (Guj. ).
- Sundarrajan v. Vellai Vinayagar Koil, AIR 2001 Mad. 110
