Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Advocate v. SUDHIR KUMAR SEHGAL ANR
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Judgment
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 209 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking to challenge the Order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an Application under Section 192 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by giving a finding that in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the
Petitioner/Applicant before the learned Trial Court is also pursuing a remedy of revival of an original suit to recover possession, the orders are declined. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:20.08.2025 20:30:51 C.R.P. 215/2023
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner [Applicant before the Trial Court] has made following submissions: (i) Firstly, he submits that the examination of the provisions of Section 193 and 194 of the Act as is requisite has not been undertaken. (ii) Secondly, it is contended that under Section 209 of the Act, an Appeal is barred hence the remedy of Civil Revision will arise under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”]. (iii) Lastly, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C Sidhan1, it is contended by the learned Counsel that this matter can be examined in the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, has averred that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the maintainability of the Petition itself is an issue. Reliance in this behalf is also placed on the judgment of Uma Devi case to say that the Supreme Court has held that if a person is aggrieved by the order under Part VII of the Act, the proper remedy would be a civil suit and not a Petition for Revision under Section 115 of the CPC.
3.1 Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, in addition seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway2 to submit that the High Court could not have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC unless the