9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pending petitions. 2. Distinction between appeals and revisions. 3. Legislative intent and interpretation of statutory provisions. Summary: 1. Applicability of Amended Section 115 to Pending Petitions: The primary issue was whether the amendments to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, introduced by the Amendment Act, 1999, effective from 1.7.2002, applied to petitions that were admitted before the amendment. The appellants contended that the amended provisions should not apply to petitions admitted before the amendment, arguing that appeals and revisions are vested rights and should be treated similarly. They also argued that applications for injunctions and similar matters relate to "other proceedings," and thus, the amended provisions should not apply. The respondents countered that the plain meaning of the statute should be given full effect, and the High Courts' orders were correct. The Supreme Court concluded that the legislative intent was clear, and the amendments applied to pending petitions, making the revisions non-maintainable. 2. Distinction Between Appeals and Revisions: The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a substantive right, whereas Section 115 does not confer a substantive right to make a revision application. Section 115 is a source of power for the High Court to supervise subordinate courts, not a right for litigants. The Court noted that appeals are a continuation of the original proceedings, while revisions are limited to jurisdictional errors and do not involve a re-hearing of the case. The Court rejected the argument that appeals and revisions stand on the same footing, clarifying that the scope and nature of these remedies are distinct. 3. Legislative Intent and Interpretation of Statutory Provisions: The Court highlighted that the language of the amended Section 115 is clear and unambiguous, stressing that interim orders cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115. The Court referred to the Law Commission's recommendations and the legislative history to underline the intent to restrict revisions against interlocutory orders. The Court also discussed principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that courts cannot read into a statute what is not explicitly stated by the legislature. The Court concluded that the amendments to Section 115 were procedural, and no vested right was affected, thus Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not apply. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts' decisions, affirming the non-maintainability of the revision applications under the amended Section 115. The Court dismissed the appeals but noted that the appellants could seek remedies under Section 227 of the Constitution if available, without needing specific liberty from the Court. The appeals were dismissed with no costs.
|
