RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERSversusASHIYAL BEEVI

                  [2023] 12 S.C.R. 697 : 2023 INSC 861



                             CASE DETAILS

                    RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS
                                      v.
                             ASHIYAL BEEVI
                      (Civil Appeal No. 6232 of 2023)
                          SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
           [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND
                    MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
                              HEADNOTES
      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]
                                     697
698          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 12 S.C.R.


     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
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6232 of 2023.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2017 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRPNP No. 1342 of 2007.
      Appearances:
      A. Sirajudeen Sr. Adv., Ms. N. Annapoorani, Adv. for the Appellants.
      RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS v. ASHIYAL BEEVI                               699


     V. Prabhakar, Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Nj Ramchandar, R. Gowrishankar,
S. Rajappa, Advs. for the Respondent.

       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.
     Factual Matrix
      3. The respondent instituted an Original Suit (in short, “O.S.”) No.
276 of 1992 for declaring her as the exclusive owner of the property
described in the second schedule of the plaint. Additionally, possession
of the said property was sought. In the alternative, it was prayed that, if
the court concludes that she is not the exclusive owner of the property,
her share therein be declared one-sixth and the same be partitioned
accordingly.
       4. The plaint case is that,-- the suit property was of plaintiff’s
grandmother Fathima Beevi, which the plaintiff purchased from her vide
sale-deed dated 14.11.1990; the first defendant (i.e., the appellant no.1) is
the daughter-in-law of Fathima Beevi whereas defendant nos. 2 to 6 are her
children; taking advantage of staying with Fathima Beevi, the husband of
the first defendant, namely, Khaja Mohideen, got a gift-deed executed in his
favour from Fathima Beevi on 24.04.1982; the said gift-deed was obtained
by exercising undue influence and coercion and was never acted upon and
is therefore a nullity. In the alternative, it was pleaded that, if the gift-deed
is accepted, since the husband of the first defendant died on 31.05.1988
(i.e., before the death of his mother Fathima Beevi), Fathima Beevi had
700           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 12 S.C.R.


one-sixth share in the property which would come to the plaintiff under the
sale-deed dated 14.11.1990.
      5. The appellants, who were defendants in the suit, contested the suit
on various grounds. On the pleadings of the parties, inter alia, following
issues came up for consideration:
      (i)    Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ownership and possession of
             the entire second schedule property or only a one-sixth share
             therein?
      (ii)   Whether the gift-deed, dated 24.04.1982, was fraudulently
             obtained from Fathima Beevi and never acted upon?
      (iii) Whether the sale-deed dated 14.11.1990, executed by Fathima
             Beevi in favour of plaintiff, valid?
      (iv) Whether the property described in the second schedule belonged
            to Fathima Beevi on the basis of a Hiba executed by her father?
      6. The trial court held that,-- the property concerned was gifted to
Fathima Beevi by her father; the gift-deed dated 24.04.1982 executed by
Fathima Beevi in favour of Kaja Mohideen (first defendant’s husband) is
invalid; the sale-deed dated 14.11.1990 in favour of the plaintiff is valid;
and that the plaintiff is entitled to one-sixth share in the second schedule
property. In terms thereof, the suit was decreed for one-sixth share in the
suit property.
       7. As the trial court found the gift-deed dated 24.04.1982 invalid and
sale-deed dated 14.11.1990 valid, the plaintiff filed a review application (I.A.
No. 207 of 2001), inter alia, claiming that the suit ought to have been decreed
in its entirety and not for mere one-sixth share. This review application was
rejected on merits by the trial court vide order dated 20.12.2006.
     8. Aggrieved by rejection of the review application, the plaintiff (i.e. the
respondent herein) filed civil revision before the High Court under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘the CPC’).
      9. The High Court entertained the revision and, by the impugned
judgment and order dated 12.09.2017, allowed it. The High Court not only
set aside the order of the trial court rejecting I.A. No. 207 of 2001 but it also
      RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS v. ASHIYAL BEEVI                               701
                 [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

allowed the review application and modified the decree dated 21.11.1996
in terms prayed for in the review application. In consequence, the decree of
the trial court, which was in respect of one-sixth share only in the second
schedule property, was extended to the whole of it. The operative portion
of the impugned order is extracted below:
     “…consequently, the judgment and decree, dated 21.11.1996, passed
     in O.S. No. 276 of 1992, on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Court,
     Tirunelveli, are modified to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled for
     declaration that the second schedule property belongs to her absolutely
     and consequently, she is entitled to recover the possession of the same
     from the defendants…”
     10. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, the
defendants are in appeal.
     11. We have heard Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned senior counsel for the
appellants and Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel, for the respondents.
     Submissions on behalf of the appellants
     12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted:
     (i)   The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision
           against an order which declined review of an appealable decree;
     (ii) Assuming that the revision was maintainable, High Court could
          not on its own modify trial court’s decree which was not the
          subject matter of challenge before the High Court;
     (iii) If the trial court had committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting
           the review application, the High Court should have remitted the
           matter back to the trial court for a fresh consideration of the review
           application;
     (iv) If the High Court’s order is allowed to stand, defendants’ right
          of an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC would get affected as
          the trial court’s decree would get merged in the decree modified
          by the High Court.
      13. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel
for the appellants prayed that the judgment and order of the High Court
702           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 12 S.C.R.


be set aside and if the plaintiff-respondent has any grievance against the
judgment and decree of the trial court, she may take recourse to the remedy
of an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.
      Submissions on behalf of the respondent
      14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted:
      (i)   Against an order rejecting a review application, no appeal lies
            (See Order XLVII, Rule 7(1) of the CPC). The term “Case”, used
            in Section 115 of the CPC, is a word of comprehensive import
            and includes civil proceedings other than the suit, therefore, there
            can be no legal bar in entertaining a revision against rejection of
            a review application;
      (ii) The Explanation to Section 115 of the CPC makes it clear that
           “any case which has been decided” includes any order made,
           or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other
           proceeding, which means that the expression “any case which
           has been decided” is all inclusive and not exclusive;
      (iii) The revisional powers vested in the High Court under Section 115
            of the CPC are wide enough to correct jurisdictional errors and
            while correcting such jurisdictional errors, the High Court can
            pass such orders as may be required to serve the ends of justice;
      (iv) The concluding part of trial court’s judgment on the basis whereof
           decree was drawn is contradictory to the body of the judgment,
           inasmuch as, if the gift deed dated 24.04.1982 is invalid and the
           sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff is valid, the plaintiff would be
           entitled to exclusive ownership and possession of the property in
           dispute. Thus, there was an error apparent on the face of the record
           which ought to have been corrected in the review. However, since
           it was not corrected, the High Court in exercise of its powers under
           Section 115 of the CPC was justified in modifying the decree.
      15. To buttress his submission that the High Court justifiably exercised
revisional power, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on several
decisions enumerated and discussed below:
      RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS v. ASHIYAL BEEVI                             703
                 [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

     (i)   Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon1; which we shall deal
           with at a later stage.
     (ii) Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya
          Bapat2. This is a decision which lays down the conditions in
          which revisional powers could be exercised and clarifies that
          if there are two modes of invoking the jurisdiction of the High
          Court and one of them is chosen and exhausted it would not
          be proper and sound exercise of discretion to grant relief in
          the other set of proceedings in respect of the same order of the
          subordinate Court. It holds that though Section 115 of the CPC
          circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction
          exercised thereunder is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction
          of the High Court as a superior Court. Therefore, the principle
          of merger of orders of inferior courts in those of superior Courts
          would be applicable.
     (iii) Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur3. This is a decision which
           deals with the general principles governing exercise of revisional
           powers. It does not deal specifically with any of the issues arising
           in this appeal.
     (iv) Srinivasiah v. Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Store4. In this
          case it was held that where a Court proceeds to decide a case on
          an incorrect assumption regarding a fact, there would be ample
          justification to exercise the review jurisdiction.
     (v) Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises v. Union of India5. Herein, this
         Court found Rule 32 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure)
         Rules, 1989, to the extent it restricted the scope of power of
         review vested under Section 18(3)(f) of the Railways Claims
         Tribunal Act, 1987 to non-appealable orders, violative of statutory
         provision and, therefore, bad.


1   AIR 1964 SC 497
2   1969 (2) SCC 74
3   (1987) 3 SCC 711
4   AIR 1999 SC 462
5   (2002) 3 SCC 692
704            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 12 S.C.R.


       (vi) The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. And
            another v. Arijit Prasad Tarway6. In this case it was held that the
            High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the
            first appellate court while exercising power under Section of 115
            of the CPC. It was observed that the order of the first appellate
            court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or
            may not be in accordance with law; but it had jurisdiction to make
            that order, therefore, the High Court could not have invoked its
            jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC.
       (vii) Prem Bakshi v. Dharam Dev7. In this case it was held that an
             order by trial court holding it has no jurisdiction to proceed, or
             that suit is barred by limitation, would amount to a final decision
             and as such revisable.
       (viii) Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor; Andaman & Nocobar
             Islands & others8. In this case it was observed that the power of
             judicial review of its own order inheres in every court of plenary
             jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice; and courts should
             not hesitate to review their own earlier order when there exists
             an error on the face of the record and the interest of justice so
             demands.
       (ix) Punjab National Bank v. Shri U.P. Mehra9. In this case the order
            of which review was sought had the effect of closing defendant’s
            evidence. The review was dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid
            two orders, revision under Section 115 of the CPC was filed which
            was dismissed upon finding that there was no jurisdictional flaw
            in the order of the trial court.
       (x) B. Subbarao v. Yellala Maram Satyanarayana10. In this case
           the plaintiff sought permission to sue as a pauper. On rejection
           of his prayer, he filed a review application. Against rejection of


6     (1972) 3 SCC 195
7     (2002) 2 SCC 2
8     (2005) 13 SCC 289
9     AIR 2004 Del. 135
10    AIR 1961 AP 502
      RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS v. ASHIYAL BEEVI                               705
                 [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

           that review application, he filed a revision under Section 115
           of the CPC. While rejecting the objection that revision is not
           maintainable against an order rejecting a review application,
           the High Court held that as there is no right of an appeal against
           rejection of a review application, the jurisdiction under Section
           115 of the CPC can be invoked.
      (xi) Arya Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lala Channoolal11. In this case it
           was held by the Allahabad High Court that the CPC does not
           provide for an appeal against refusal of a review though an appeal
           under Order XLlII, Rule 1(w) from an order granting a review
           is maintainable. However, an order rejecting the review may be
           brought into question in a revision.
           [Note: In this case the order of which review was sought was not
           a decree but an order striking off defence and directing the suit
           to proceed ex parte.]
      (xii) Thakur Singh v. Bhaironlal12. In this case an ex parte decree was
            passed in a suit. Instead of filing an appeal or an application to set
            aside the ex parte decree a review was filed, which was rejected.
            Against rejection of the review, a revision was filed. Although the
            revision was dismissed but, while deciding the same, preliminary
            objection as to its maintainability was overruled.
      DISCUSSION
     16. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
record.
      17. The short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal
is:
      Whether a revision under Section 115 of the 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?


11 AIR 1957 All 400
12 AIR 1956 Raj 113
706           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 12 S.C.R.


      18. To appropriately address the aforesaid issue, it would be apposite
to have an overview of the relevant provisions of the CPC. An application
seeking a review of a judgment and decree passed in a civil suit is
maintainable under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. Rule 4 of Order XLVII
provides that where it appears to the Court that there is not sufficient ground
for a review, it shall reject the application. Sub rule (2) of Rule 4 provides
that where the Court is of opinion that the application for review should
be granted, it shall grant the same. Rule 7 of Order XLVII provides that an
order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an
order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from
the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order
finally passed or made in the suit. In fact, Order XLIII Rule 1 (w) supplements
Order XLVII Rule 7 by providing that an appeal would lie against an order
under Rule 4 (2) of Order XLVII granting an application for review. Rule
9 of Order XLVII provides that no application to review an order made on
an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review
shall be entertained.
     19. From the provisions of Order XLVII of the CPC it is clear that an
order rejecting a review application is not appealable.
       20. In Major S.S. Khanna (supra), in a civil suit an issue was framed as
to whether the suit was maintainable. The said issue was tried as a preliminary
issue. The trial court held the suit not maintainable. Against the order of the
trial court, a revision was preferred before the High Court under Section 115
of the CPC. The High Court of Punjab set aside the order and directed that
the suit shall be heard and disposed of according to law. Aggrieved by the
order of the High Court, a Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court.
Before this Court it was urged: (a) that the order under challenge before the
High Court did not amount to “a case which has been decided” within the
meaning of Section 115 of the CPC; (b) that the decree which may follow
would be subject to an appeal to the High Court therefore, the power of the
High Court was, by the express terms of Section 115 of the CPC, excluded;
and (c) that the order did not fall within any of the three clauses (a), (b) and
(c) of Section 115 of the Code. In that context, this Court observed:
      “6……………The validity of the argument turns upon the true meaning
      of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides:
RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS v. ASHIYAL BEEVI                              707
           [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

“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.”
The section consists of two parts, the first prescribes the conditions
in which jurisdiction of the High Court arises i.e. there is a case
decided by a subordinate Court in which no appeal lies to the High
Court, the second sets out the circumstances in which the jurisdiction
maybe exercised. But the power of the High Court is exercisable
in respect of “any case which has been decided”. The expression
“case” is not defined in, the Code, nor in the General Clauses Act. It
is undoubtedly not restricted to a litigation in the nature of a suit in a
civil court : Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar [LR 44 IA 261];
it includes a proceeding in a civil court in which the jurisdiction of
the Court is invoked for the determination of some claim or right
legally enforceable. On the question whether an order of a Court
which does not finally dispose of the suit or proceeding amounts to
a “case which has been decided”, there has arisen a serious conflict
of opinion in the High Courts in India and the question has not been
directly considered by this Court. One view which is accepted by a
majority of the High Courts is that the expression “case” includes an
interlocutory proceeding relating to the rights and obligations of the
parties, and the expression record of any case includes so much of
the proceeding as relates to the order disposing of the interlocutory
proceeding. The High Court has therefore power to rectify an order of
a Subordinate Court at any stage of a suit or proceeding even if there
be another remedy open to the party aggrieved i.e. by reserving his
right to file an appeal against the ultimate decision, and making the
illegality in the order a ground of that appeal. The other view is that
the expression “case” does not include an issue or a part of a suit or
proceeding and therefore the order on an issue or a part of a suit or
708          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 12 S.C.R.


      proceeding is not a “case which has been decided”, and the High
      Court has no power in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to
      correct an error in an interlocutory order.
      7. An analysis of the cases decided by the High Courts — their
      number is legion — would serve no useful purpose. In every High
      Court from time to time opinion has fluctuated. The meaning
      of the expression “case” must be sought in the nature of the
      jurisdiction conferred by Section 115, and the purpose for which
      the High Courts were invested with it.
      Xxxxxx            xxxxxxxx        xxxxxxxx        xxxxxxxxx
      10. The expression “case” is a word of comprehensive import; it
      Includes civil proceedings other than suits, and is not restricted
      by anything contained in the section to the entirety of the
      proceeding in a civil court. To interpret the expression “case”
      as an entire proceeding only and not a part of a proceeding
      would be to impose a restriction upon the exercise of powers of
      superintendence which the jurisdiction to issue writs, and the
      supervisory jurisdiction are not subject, and may result in certain
      cases in denying relief to an aggrieved litigant where it is most
      needed, and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice.
      11. It may be observed that the majority view of the High Court
      of Allahabad in Buddhulal v. Mewa Ram [ILR 43 All 564 FB]
      founded upon the supposition that even though the word “case”
      has a wide signification the jurisdiction of the High Court can
      only be invoked from an order in a suit, where the suit and not
      a part of it is decided, proceeded upon the fallacy that because
      the expression “case” includes a suit, in defining the limits of
      the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court the expression
      “suit” should be substituted in the section, when the order sought
      to be revised is an order passed in a suit. The expression “case”
      includes a suit, but in ascertaining the limits of the jurisdiction
      of the High Court, there would be no warrant for equating it
      with a suit alone.
                                                   (Emphasis supplied)
      RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS v. ASHIYAL BEEVI                               709
                 [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

     After observing as above, in paragraph No.12, it was observed:
     “12. That is not to say that the High Court is obliged to exercise its
     jurisdiction when a case is decided by a subordinate Court and the
     conditions in clauses (a), (b), or (c) are satisfied. Exercise of the
     jurisdiction is discretionary : the High Court is not bound to interfere
     merely because the conditions are satisfied. 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 being served by the order
     made are all matters to be taken into account in considering whether
     the High Court, even in cases where the conditions which attract the
     jurisdiction exist, should exercise its jurisdiction.”
                                                         (Emphasis supplied)
      21. The law laid down in Major S.S. Khanna (supra) by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court still holds the field. Thus, it is settled that the expression
“case” used in Section 115 of the CPC is of wide amplitude. It includes
civil proceedings other than suits, and is not restricted to the entirety of the
proceeding in a civil court. In that sense, rejection of a review application
would also be a case which has been decided and, therefore, it could be
canvassed that as no appeal lies against such an order, the same is amenable
to the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. However, at the
same time, it cannot be overlooked that exercise of revisional powers cannot
be claimed as of right. It is a discretionary power. The revisional Court is
not bound to interfere merely because any of the three conditions, as laid
down in Section 115 of the CPC for exercise of such power, is satisfied.
Rather, 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.
      22. In Major S.S. Khanna (supra) the order impugned before the
revisional court was an order by which the trial court while deciding a
preliminary issue held the suit as not maintainable though, the suit itself was
not decided. Therefore, there was no appealable decree in existence at the
time when the revisional jurisdiction was invoked. Whereas, in the case at
710           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 12 S.C.R.


hand there was already an appealable decree in existence when the revisional
powers were invoked. In fact, the review application sought review of an
appealable decree and not just a mere order that might have been passed by
the court in the course of a suit. The revision was filed against rejection of that
review application. At that stage, when the review application was rejected,
the aggrieved party had a right to question the decree of the trial court in
an appeal. In these circumstances, the question that needs determination is,
whether, against an order of the Subordinate Court rejecting on merits an
application for review of an appealable decree, a revision be entertained.
     23. In DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan13, this Court had
the occasion to examine different situations which may arise in relation to
orders passed in a review petition. While dealing with those situations, it
was observed:
      “25.1. One of the situations could be where the review application is
      allowed, the decree or order passed by the court or tribunal is vacated
      and the appeal/proceedings in which the same is made are reheard and
      a fresh decree or order passed in the same. It is manifest that in such a
      situation the subsequent decree alone is appealable not because it is an
      order in review but because it is a decree that is passed in a proceeding
      after the earlier decree passed in the very same proceedings has been
      vacated by the court hearing the review petition.
      25.2. The second situation that one can conceive of is where a court
      or tribunal makes an order in a review petition by which the review
      petition is allowed and the decree/order under review is reversed or
      modified. Such an order shall then be a composite order whereby the
      court not only vacates the earlier decree or order but simultaneous with
      such vacation of the earlier decree or order, passes another decree or
      order or modifies the one made earlier. The decree so vacated reversed
      or modified is then the decree that is effective for the purposes of a
      further appeal, if any, maintainable under law.
      25.3. The third situation with which we are concerned in the instant
      case is where the revision petition is filed before the Tribunal but the


13 (2012) 6 SCC 782
      RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS v. ASHIYAL BEEVI                               711
                 [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

     Tribunal refuses to interfere with the decree or order earlier made. It
     simply dismisses the review petition. The decree in such a case suffers
     neither any reversal nor an alteration or modification. It is an order by
     which the review petition is dismissed thereby affirming the decree
     or order. In such a contingency there is no question of any merger
     and anyone aggrieved by the decree or order of the Tribunal or court
     shall have to challenge within the time stipulated by law, the original
     decree and not the order dismissing the review petition. Time taken
     by a party in diligently pursing the remedy by way of review may in
     appropriate cases be excluded from consideration while condoning the
     delay in the filing of the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation
     would not imply that there is a merger of the original decree and the
     order dismissing the review petition.”
                                                        (Emphasis supplied)
       24. What is clear from the above observations is, that where the review
is allowed and the decree/order under review is reversed or modified, such
an order shall then be a composite order whereby the court not only vacates
the earlier decree or order but simultaneous with such vacation of the earlier
decree or order, passes another decree or order or modifies the one made
earlier. The decree so vacated, reversed or modified is then the decree that
is effective for the purposes of a further appeal, if any, maintainable under
law. But where the review petition is dismissed, there is no question of any
merger and anyone aggrieved by the decree or order of the Tribunal or Court
shall have to challenge within the time stipulated by law, the original decree
and not the order dismissing the review petition. Time taken by a party in
diligently pursuing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate cases
be excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in the filing of
the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply that there is
a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review petition.
      25. Apart from above, there is another reason also for a revisional court
not to entertain a revision against an order rejecting on merits an application
for review of an appealable decree, which is, if the revisional court sets aside
or modifies or alters a trial court’s decree, the decree of the trial court would
merge in the one passed by the revisional court. In consequence, the right
of the party aggrieved by the trial court’s decree to file an appeal would get
712           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 12 S.C.R.


affected. Further, there may be a case where a person is aggrieved by a finding
of the trial court on any issue, even though the trial court’s decree may be
in its favour. In that scenario, if there is an appeal by a party aggrieved by
the decree, that person would have a right to take an objection against the
adverse finding with the aid of the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 22 of the
CPC, but in the event of there being no appeal against the decree, such a
person would lose its right to take an objection, under Order XLI, Rule 22
of the CPC, against that adverse finding.
     26. No doubt revisional powers may be available on limited grounds,
primarily to correct jurisdictional errors, but still it is a part of the general
appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. In Shankar
Ramchandra (supra), this Court observed:
      “6. Now when the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional
      side it is done because it is a superior court and it can interfere for the
      purpose of rectifying the error of the court below. Section 115 of the
      Code of Civil Procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction
      but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general
      appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. It is only
      one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the statute; basically
      and fundamentally it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court
      which is being invoked and exercised in a wider and larger sense. We
      do not, therefore, consider that the principle of merger of orders of
      inferior courts in those of superior Courts would be affected or would
      become inapplicable by making a distinction between a petition for
      revision and an appeal.”
                                                          (Emphasis supplied)
       27. In the instant case, the trial court, which had jurisdiction to allow or
dismiss the review application, dismissed the review application on merits.
If it had granted the review, the aggrieved party would have had a right to
file an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (w) read with Order XLVII Rule
7 of the CPC. And if it had allowed the review and simultaneously altered/
modified/reversed the decree, the aggrieved party would have had a right
to file an appeal against the said decree. But, if the revisional court does
the same, as has been done by the High Court while passing the impugned
order, an anomalous situation would arise. The decree passed by the trial
      RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS v. ASHIYAL BEEVI                               713
                 [MANOJ MISRA, J.]

court would stand modified by the High Court. Therefore, if the defendant(s)
against whom the decree is passed were to challenge the same, they would
be at a disadvantage on account of the merger. Whereas, from the stand point
of the plaintiff-respondent, even if we assume that the trial court’s decree
is inconsistent with its finding on the validity of the gift in favour of Khaja
Mohideen, she can challenge the same in an appeal against the decree even
after rejection of the review application. In the event of such an appeal by
the plaintiff, the defendant(s), even if they had themselves not filed an appeal
against the trial court’s decree, would have a right to take objection to the
adverse finding(s) under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC. However, if the
revisional court’s order is allowed to stand, owing to modification of the
decree by the revisional court, to which in normal course an appeal would lie,
the right of an appeal to the aggrieved party would get seriously prejudiced.
      28. For all the reasons above, we are of the considered view that
where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be
entertained under Section 115 of the CPC 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.
      29. In view of our conclusion above, the revision of the respondent
against rejection of her application for review of an appealable decree ought
not to have been entertained by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore,
allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.
      30. However, this will not affect the right of the plaintiff/respondent to
file an appeal against the decree of the trial court along with an application to
condone the delay, if any, in filing the appeal. Parties to bear their own costs.


Headnotes prepared by:                                            Appeal allowed.
Divya Pandey