LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/case-details-rahimal-bathu-others-vs-ashiyal-beevi-20230926/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Case Details Rahimal Bathu & Others vs Ashiyal Beevi

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
26 September 2023
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 6232 of 2023
Result
Allowed
Bench
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra
Citation
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 697 : 2023 INSC 861
Supreme Court Reports [2023] 12 S.C.R. 697 : 2023 INSC 861
Issue for consideration
Whether a revision u/s.115, 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. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.115 – Exercise of revisional powers: Held: Exercise of revisional powers cannot be claimed as of right – It is a discretionary power – Revisional Court is not bound to interfere merely because any of the three conditions, as laid down in s.115 for exercise of such power, is satisfied – The Court, exercising revisional powers, must bear in mind, inter alia whether it would be appropriate to exercise such power considering the interlocutory character of the order, the existence of another remedy to an aggrieved party by way of an appeal, from the ultimate order or decree in the proceeding, or by a suit, and the general equities of the case – Where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained u/s.115 against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree – 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 – In the present case, the revision of the respondent-plaintiff against rejection of her application for review of an appealable decree ought not to have been entertained by the High Court – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside. [Paras 21, 28 and 29]
Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII, rr.1, 4(2), 7; Or. XLIII, r.1(w):

Held: From the provisions of Or.XLVII of the CPC it is clear that an order rejecting a review application is not appealable. [Para 19] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.115; Or. XLI, r.22 – Reasons for revisional court not to entertain a revision against an order rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree – discussed. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon AIR 1964 SC 497 : [1964] SCR 409; DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 6 SCC 782 : [2012] 5 SCR 583; Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (1969) 2 SCC 74 : [1970] 1 SCR 322 – relied on.

Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur (1987) 3 SCC 711 : [1987] 3 SCR 552; Srinivasiah v. Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Store AIR 1999 SC 462; Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises v. Union of India (2002) 3 SCC 692 : [2002] 2 SCR 298; The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. And another v. Arijit Prasad Tarway (1972) 3 SCC 195; Prem Bakshi v. Dharam Dev (2002) 2 SCC 2 : [2002] 1 SCR 103; Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor; Andaman & Nocobar Islands & Others (2005) 13 SCC 289 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 1042 – referred to.

Punjab National Bank v. Shri U.P. Mehra AIR 2004 Del. 135; B. Subbarao v. Yellala Maram Satyanarayana AIR 1961 AP 502; Arya Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lala Channoolal AIR 1957 All 400; Thakur Singh v. Bhaironlal AIR 1956 Raj 113 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT MANOJ MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This is defendants’ appeal against the order of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (in short, ‘the High Court’), dated 12.09.2017, passed in C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No. 1342 of 2007, by which the revision of the plaintiff-respondent was allowed, the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the court of First Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli in I.A. No. 207 of 2001 in O.S. No. 276 of 1992 was set aside, I.A. No. 207 of 2001 was allowed and the decree dated 21.11.1996 passed in O.S. No. 276 of 1992 was modified. Factu
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →