Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
s. 115 proviso (As inserted by amendment in 1999) – Revisional jurisdiction of High Court – Scope of – Held: In view of the proviso revisional jurisdiction is not maintainable against interlocutory orders – Scope of jurisdiction u/s. 115 is limited to rectify jurisdictional errors only.
Or. XXXIX, r. 1 – Interlocutory mandatory injunction – Grant of – Criteria – Held: When mandatory injunction is granted at interim stage, much more than a prima facie case has to be made out.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court set aside the concurrent findings of fact and allowed a revision petition, without dealing with any of the aspects set out by the first Appellate Court. The 1999 amendment to the CPC added a proviso Section 115 CPC. A reading of this proviso will show that, after 1999, revision petitions filed under Section 115 CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders. Even otherwise, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only. [Paras 5, 6 and 7][700-B, C, H] D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company Private Ltd., New Delhi v. Sarup Singh and Others [1970] 2 SCR 368; Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others (1990) 2 SCC 117 : [1990] 1 SCR 332 – relied on.
2. When a mandatory injunction is granted at the interim stage, much more than a mere prima facie case has to be made out. [Para 8][702-F]
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.
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.