Section 115 CPC — Revision

Introduction

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. It empowers the High Court to examine the record of a case decided by a subordinate court where the subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction.

Revision is different from an appeal. The High Court does not ordinarily reconsider the entire case on merits. Its jurisdiction under Section 115 is mainly concerned with jurisdictional errors committed by subordinate courts.

Section at a Glance

Particular	Details
Section	Section 115 CPC
Subject	Revision
Revisional Court	High Court
Court Against	Subordinate Court
Main Purpose	Correction of specified jurisdictional errors
Nature	Supervisory jurisdiction
Related Provision	Section 115 CPC itself
Important Distinction	Revision is not a second appeal

Statutory Provision

Section 115 CPC provides:

115. Revision.—(1) 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 the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.

(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.

(3) A revision application shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree or order against which the application is made and, where the decree or order is sought to be revised on the ground of any error or defect in the record, by a copy of the relevant portion of the record.

(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any proceeding arising from a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.

Meaning of Revision

Revision means the examination of the record of a case by the High Court to determine whether a subordinate court has acted within the jurisdiction given to it by law.

The High Court does not exercise ordinary appellate jurisdiction while hearing a revision. It is primarily concerned with whether the subordinate court:

• exercised a jurisdiction which it did not possess;
• failed to exercise jurisdiction which it possessed; or
• acted illegally or with material irregularity while exercising its jurisdiction.

Thus, revision is primarily a remedy against jurisdictional errors.

Object of Section 115

The main objectives of Section 115 are:

• To keep subordinate courts within the limits of their jurisdiction.
• To correct jurisdictional errors.
• To prevent subordinate courts from refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in them.
• To correct serious illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.
• To ensure proper administration of justice where no appeal is available.

The provision therefore gives the High Court a limited supervisory power over subordinate courts.

Essential Conditions for Revision

For Section 115 to apply, certain conditions must be satisfied.

1. There must be a case decided by a subordinate court

The High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction only in respect of a case decided by a court subordinate to it.

2. No appeal should lie

Revision under Section 115 is available only where no appeal lies to the High Court or to a subordinate appellate court, subject to the statutory scheme.

If an appeal is available, revision cannot ordinarily be used as a substitute for that appeal.

3. The subordinate court must have committed a jurisdictional error

One of the grounds specified in Section 115 must exist.

The three principal grounds are:

• Exercise of jurisdiction not vested by law.
• Failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law.
• Illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction.

Grounds of Revision

1. Exercise of Jurisdiction Not Vested by Law

A subordinate court may sometimes exercise a jurisdiction which the law does not confer upon it.

For example, if a court which has no legal authority to decide a particular category of matter nevertheless assumes jurisdiction over it, the High Court may exercise revisional jurisdiction if the requirements of Section 115 are satisfied.

The essential issue is whether the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction.

2. Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction Vested by Law

A court may also possess jurisdiction but fail or refuse to exercise it.

Where a subordinate court is legally required to exercise a particular jurisdiction but fails to do so, the High Court may interfere under Section 115, subject to the other statutory requirements.

3. Illegal or Materially Irregular Exercise of Jurisdiction

The third ground arises where the subordinate court has jurisdiction but exercises it illegally or with material irregularity.

The distinction is important.

The court may have jurisdiction over the matter, but the manner in which that jurisdiction has been exercised may contain a serious legal defect.

Meaning of Material Irregularity

Material irregularity means a serious procedural irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.

It is not every minor procedural mistake.

The irregularity must be material and must affect the proper exercise of the court’s jurisdiction.

Therefore, Section 115 does not give the High Court unlimited authority to correct every error committed by a subordinate court.

Revisional Jurisdiction Is Limited

The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 115 is narrower than its appellate jurisdiction.

In an appeal, the appellate court may generally examine questions of law and fact within the scope of the appeal.

In revision, the High Court primarily examines whether the subordinate court has acted within the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and whether the statutory requirements for interference are satisfied.

Proviso to Section 115

The proviso places an important restriction on the High Court’s revisional power.

The High Court shall not vary or reverse an interlocutory order or an order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or proceeding unless:

If the order had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, it would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding.

This is an important limitation on interference with interim or interlocutory orders.

Example

Suppose a trial court passes an interim procedural order during the pendency of a suit.

If reversing that order would not result in the final disposal of the suit, the High Court ordinarily cannot interfere with that order under Section 115 merely because the order is alleged to be incorrect.

However, if the order, had it been made in favour of the revision applicant, would have finally disposed of the proceeding, the statutory restriction may not prevent revision.

Section 115(2)

Section 115(2) provides that the High Court shall not exercise revisional jurisdiction to vary or reverse a decree or order against which an appeal lies either:

• to the High Court; or
• to a court subordinate to the High Court.

Therefore, where an appeal is available, the appropriate appellate remedy should ordinarily be pursued.

Section 115(3)

Section 115(3) requires a revision application to be accompanied by:

• a copy of the decree or order against which revision is sought; and
• where the revision is based upon an error or defect in the record, a copy of the relevant portion of the record.

This provision deals with the procedural requirements accompanying a revision application.

Section 115(4)

Section 115(4) excludes proceedings arising from a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes from the operation of Section 115.

Therefore, the statutory scheme applicable to such proceedings must be considered separately.

Revision vs Appeal

This is one of the most important distinctions for examinations.

Basis	Appeal	Revision
Nature	Appellate jurisdiction	Revisional jurisdiction
Court	Superior appellate court	High Court
Scope	Generally wider	Limited
Main focus	Correctness of decision	Jurisdictional errors
Questions of fact	May generally be examined subject to law	Not ordinarily re-examined as in appeal
Availability	Where statute provides appeal	Where no appeal lies and Section 115 conditions are satisfied
Purpose	Reconsideration of decision	Supervisory correction of jurisdictional errors

Revision vs Review

Basis	Review	Revision
Provision	Section 114	Section 115
Court	Same court	High Court
Purpose	Reconsideration on recognised grounds	Correction of specified jurisdictional errors
Main Grounds	New evidence, error apparent, sufficient reason	Lack of jurisdiction, failure to exercise jurisdiction, illegal/materially irregular exercise
Nature	Limited reconsideration	Supervisory jurisdiction

Revision vs Reference

Basis	Reference	Revision
Provision	Section 113	Section 115
Who initiates	Subordinate court refers question	Aggrieved party generally invokes High Court’s jurisdiction
Court involved	High Court decides referred question	High Court exercises revisional jurisdiction
Purpose	Determination of specified legal question	Correction of jurisdictional errors
Nature	Reference mechanism	Supervisory jurisdiction

Important Case Law

Major S.S. & Co. v. Union of India

Citation: (1971) 1 SCC 617

The Supreme Court explained that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 is concerned with jurisdictional errors and is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh

Citation: (2014) 9 SCC 78

The Supreme Court discussed the scope and limitations of revisional jurisdiction and emphasised that revision cannot be treated as a general appellate remedy.

The case is important for understanding the restricted nature of revisional jurisdiction.

Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria

Citation: AIR 1953 SC 23

The Supreme Court explained the scope of Section 115 and the circumstances in which the High Court may exercise revisional jurisdiction where a subordinate court has acted beyond or failed to exercise its jurisdiction.

Practical Example

Example 1 — Jurisdiction Not Vested

Suppose a subordinate court decides a matter which, under the applicable law, falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of another court.

If the subordinate court assumes jurisdiction despite having no legal authority to do so, the High Court may consider exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, provided the other requirements are satisfied.

Example 2 — Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction

Suppose a court has jurisdiction to decide an application but refuses to consider it despite being legally required to do so.

This may constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the court.

Example 3 — Material Irregularity

Suppose a subordinate court has jurisdiction over a proceeding but follows a procedure involving a serious and material irregularity in exercising that jurisdiction.

If the statutory requirements are satisfied, the High Court may exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

What Revision Cannot Be Used For

Revision cannot ordinarily be used:

• As a substitute for an appeal.
• To challenge every factual finding of the subordinate court.
• To obtain a complete rehearing of the case.
• To correct every minor procedural error.
• To interfere with every interlocutory order.
• Where an effective statutory appeal is available.

The High Court must remain within the limits prescribed by Section 115.

Practical Importance in Civil Litigation

Before filing a revision petition, an advocate should examine:

1. Has the subordinate court decided a case?
2. Does an appeal lie against the relevant decree or order?
3. If no appeal lies, has the subordinate court committed one of the jurisdictional errors recognised under Section 115?
4. Has the court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it?
5. Has the court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it?
6. Has the court acted illegally or with material irregularity?
7. Is the challenged order interlocutory?
8. If it is interlocutory, would the order, if made in favour of the applicant, have finally disposed of the proceeding?

These questions help determine whether a revision petition is maintainable.

Importance for Law Students and Judiciary Exams

What to Remember

• Section 115 CPC deals with Revision.
• Revisional jurisdiction is exercised by the High Court.
• It concerns cases decided by a subordinate court.
• Revision is generally available where no appeal lies.
• There are three principal grounds:
  1. Jurisdiction not vested by law.
  2. Failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law.
  3. Illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
• Revision is not a second appeal.
• The proviso restricts interference with interlocutory orders.
• Section 115(2) prevents revision where an appeal lies.
• Revision is primarily concerned with jurisdictional errors, not ordinary errors of fact.

Important Questions for Exams

1. Explain the scope of Section 115 CPC.
2. What are the grounds on which revisional jurisdiction can be exercised?
3. What is meant by exercise of jurisdiction not vested by law?
4. What is meant by failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law?
5. Explain illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
6. Distinguish revision from appeal.
7. Distinguish revision from review.
8. Explain the restriction imposed by the proviso to Section 115.
9. Can revision be filed against an interlocutory order?
10. Explain the meaning and scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Key Legal Principles

1. Revision is supervisory in nature

Section 115 enables the High Court to supervise subordinate courts within the limits prescribed by the CPC.

2. Revision is not an appeal

The High Court does not ordinarily exercise the same wide powers that it exercises in an appeal.

3. Jurisdictional error is essential

One of the statutory grounds under Section 115 must be established.

4. No appeal should ordinarily lie

Where an appeal is available, revision cannot be used as an alternative appellate remedy.

5. Interlocutory orders are subject to restriction

The proviso prevents the High Court from interfering with certain interlocutory orders unless the statutory test relating to final disposal is satisfied.

Key Takeaways

Concept	Principle
Section 115	Revision
Revisional Court	High Court
Against	Subordinate court
Basic requirement	No appeal should lie
Ground 1	Jurisdiction not vested by law
Ground 2	Failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law
Ground 3	Illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction
Interlocutory orders	Restricted by the proviso
Revision ≠ Appeal	Revision is narrower
Revision ≠ Review	Revision is exercised by the High Court

ALSO READ: Section 114 – Review

Conclusion

Section 115 CPC provides the High Court with a limited revisional jurisdiction over subordinate courts. Its purpose is not to provide another opportunity to challenge the merits of a case, but to ensure that subordinate courts act within the jurisdiction conferred upon them by law.

The three grounds are the foundation of Section 115: exercise of jurisdiction not vested by law, failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law, and illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction.

For examinations, the simplest way to remember the provision is:

Section 113 — Reference
Section 114 — Review
Section 115 — Revision

Revision is therefore a supervisory remedy against specified jurisdictional errors of subordinate courts, subject to the limitations imposed by Section 115 CPC.