Section 115 — Revision
The High Court’s supervisory eye. Where a subordinate court has decided a case in which no appeal lies, the High Court may call for the record and intervene — but only on a jurisdictional footing: the court below (a) took a jurisdiction it did not have, (b) declined one it did, or (c) exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Revision corrects how a court used its jurisdiction — not mere errors of fact or law within it.
How to read Section 115
When it lies (1)
The High Court may call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate court in which no appeal lies, and pass such order as it thinks fit — on the three jurisdictional grounds (a)(b)(c).
Jurisdiction only
The grounds are about jurisdiction: (a) exercised one not vested, (b) failed to exercise one vested, or (c) acted illegally or with material irregularity. A wrong decision within jurisdiction is not revisable.
The limits (proviso, (2), (3))
Proviso: an interlocutory order is revised only if reversing it would finally dispose of the case. (2) no revision where an appeal lies; (3) a revision is not a stay unless the High Court orders one.
The bare Act
1(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—
the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
3(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.
4(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.
→ Revision is the High Court’s supervisory power — no separate Order governs it; cf. Article 227 (superintendence). It corrects jurisdictional error only, where no appeal lies (compare § 96/§ 100 appeals and § 114 review).
1. § 115 was re-numbered as sub-section (1) by Act 104 of 1976, s. 43 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977). 2. The proviso was substituted by Act 46 of 1999, s. 12 (w.e.f. 1-7-2002). 3. Sub-section (2) and the Explanation were inserted by Act 104 of 1976, s. 43 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977). 4. Sub-section (3) was inserted by Act 46 of 1999, s. 12 (w.e.f. 1-7-2002).
Key terms decoded
The High Court’s supervisory correction of a subordinate court’s jurisdictional error, where no appeal lies — not a re-hearing on the merits.
To send for the case file of the court below, to examine how it exercised its jurisdiction.
Revision is a residual remedy — available only where the Code gives no appeal to the High Court from that decision.
The court below assumed a power it did not have — it acted beyond its jurisdiction.
It declined or omitted to exercise a jurisdiction the law did vest in it.
It had jurisdiction but exercised it with a serious procedural defect going to the manner of exercise — not a mere error of fact or law within jurisdiction.
An interlocutory order is revised only if its reversal would finally dispose of the suit or proceeding — curbing piecemeal revisions.
No revision of a decree/order against which an appeal lies — to the High Court or a subordinate court. Revision fills the gap appeals leave.
A revision does not stay the proceeding unless the High Court so orders (3); and “case which has been decided” includes an order deciding an issue (Explanation).
The picture — the High Court’s supervisory eye
§ 115 is the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction. It does not re-try the case; it asks a narrower question — did the court below keep within its jurisdiction, and exercise it regularly? It reaches down only where no appeal climbs up, and is fenced by the proviso, sub-section (2) and sub-section (3).
Section 115, part by part
Sub-section (1) — the power: the High Court calls for the record (where no appeal lies) and may intervene on three jurisdictional grounds (a)(b)(c), making such order as it thinks fit.
The proviso (substituted 1999) curbs revision of interlocutory orders: an order is revised only if reversing it would finally dispose of the suit or proceeding.
Sub-section (2) — revision fills the gap appeals leave: no revision of a decree/order against which an appeal lies (to the High Court or a subordinate court).
Sub-section (3) — filing a revision does not halt the case below; the suit goes on unless the High Court itself orders a stay.
The Explanation — it widens “a case which has been decided” to reach interlocutory orders, so revision (within the proviso’s limit) can touch an order deciding an issue.
How the parts work as one body
A narrow power, tightly fenced
State amendments — revision in the Districts
Several States have substituted § 115 to share the revisional power with the District Court. The common pattern: the District Court revises lower-value cases, the High Court the higher-value ones (and anything the District Court itself decided); with a tighter proviso (revise an interlocutory order only if reversal would finally dispose of it, or to prevent a failure of justice / irreparable injury), and the rule that a revision is not a stay. The two current substitutions are set out below; earlier versions (now superseded) follow as a timeline.
(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 or the District Court, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation decided by the District Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section.
(2) The High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, shall not under this section, vary or reverse any order, including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceedings, 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 proceedings.
(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court or District Court, as the case may be.
Explanation—In this section, the expression “any case which has been decided” includes any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding.
(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(2) A revision application under sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a certificate on the first page of such application, below the title of the case, to the effect that no revision in the case lies to the district court but lies only to the High Court either because of valuation or because the order sought to be revised was passed by the district court.
(3) The superior court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where—
(i) 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; or
(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made.
(4) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the superior court.
Explanation I—In this section,— (i) the expression “superior court” means— (a) the district court, where the valuation of a case decided by a court subordinate to it does not exceed five lakh rupees;(b) the High Court, where the order sought to be revised was passed in a case decided by the district court or where the value of the original suit or other proceedings in a case decided by a court subordinate to the district court exceeds five lakh rupees; (ii) the expression “order” includes an order deciding an issue in any original suit or other proceedings.
Explanation II—The provisions of this section shall also be applicable to orders passed, before or after the commencement of this section, in original suits or other proceedings instituted before such commencement.
Earlier iterations — a citation timeline (superseded)
First Orissa substitution — District Court revises cases up to ₹1 lakh, the High Court above; with a saving for proceedings already begun in the High Court. Superseded by Orissa Act 14 of 2010 (threshold raised to ₹5 lakh).
Inserted “High Court or District Court” throughout, and barred the District Court from records of original suits of ₹20,000 or above.
Refined the split — High Court for suits of ₹20,000 and above, District Court otherwise; the proviso omitted.
Substituted § 115 — High Court for suits of ₹20,000 and above (anchor 20 Sept 1972), District Court otherwise; High Court alone for District-Court matters.
Re-substituted § 115 (anchor 1 Aug 1978) and added the failure-of-justice / irreparable-injury proviso and an Explanation.
Raised the line to over ₹1 lakh (up to ₹5 lakh as the High Court may notify) and added a pending-proceedings proviso. All the above U.P. versions were replaced by Act 14 of 2003.
Connected provisions
Section 115 closes Part VIII — the last of the three correctives. Reference (§ 113) looks up, review (§ 114) looks in, and revision looks down — the High Court supervising a subordinate court’s use of its jurisdiction where no appeal lies. It is the statutory cousin of Article 227 (superintendence).