(2) To have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(3) To have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
The High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.
Proviso to Sec. 115, lays down that no revision application shall lie against an interlocutory order unless either of the two conditions is satisfied namely:
1) that if the orders were made in favour of the applicant it would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or
2) That the order, if allowed to stand, is likely to occasion a failure of justice or cause an irreparable injury.
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.
The following conditions must be satisfied before the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court-
(i) A case must have been decided by the Court subordinate to the High Court.
(ii) The order should not be an appealable one; and
(iii) The subordinate Court must have-
(a) Exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) Failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it; or
(c) Acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
A. Instances where a subordinate Court exercise jurisdiction not vested in it by Law:
(i) where the lower Court assume jurisdiction which it does not possess on account of the pecuniary or territorial limits by reason of the subject matter of the suit;
(ii) entertains an appeal from an order which is not appealable;
(iii) Grants an injunction without considering whether a prima facie case is I made out.
B. Instances where a subordinate Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it:
(i) Refusal by the Court to summon the deponent of an affidavit for cross- examination;
(ii) Failure of the executing Court to construe the decree;
(iii) Rejection of a counter claims on the ground that the original suit is dismissed for default.
C. Instances where a subordinate Court acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity:
(i) Where it decides a case without considering the evidence on record;
(ii) Decides a case without recording reasons for its judgement;
(iii) Follow a decision which does not apply to the facts of the case.
The period of limitation for preferring a revision application is ninety days from the date of decree or order sought to be revised is passed.
1. Appeal lies to a superior Court, which may not necessarily be a High Court.
2. An appeal lies only from the decrees and appealable orders.
3. A right of appeal is a substantive right conferred by the statute.
4. An appeal abates if the legal representatives of deceased parties are not brought on record within the prescribed period.
5. An appeal lies on question of fact and law.
6. An appeal must be filed before the appellate Court by the aggrieved party.
1. A revision application under the Code lies only to the High Court.
2. A revision application lies from any decision of a Court subordinate to the High Court.
3. The revisional power of the High Court is purely discretionary.
4. A revision application, however, does not abate in such cases.
5. A revision application lies only on the ground of jurisdictional error.
6. Filing of an application is not necessary in revision.