Redirect, When It Is Rejected.

Revision:

It means to re-examine or re-look in to the matter which is disposed by the lower court by the Superior Courts which was proposed by aggrieved. Revision is mentioned under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It is known as Inter Court provision. In order to file a Revision petition, it is required to do so within 90 days from the date of the court's decree.

Section 115:

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
   1. to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
   2. to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
   3. 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:
2. Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any Order made, or any Order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, 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. 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. 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.

In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" not only includes any order made, but also any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding^[1].
Jurisdiction:
High courts have the jurisdiction and power to issue any suit or stay order in any suit with regards to revision.

Exceptions:

• There are a few exceptions as when High Courts do not have the discretion to deal with Revision cases.
• The High Court cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction if the order, if it is made in favor of the party applying for the revision, would have already finally disposed the case.
• The High Court cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction over any order or decree that can be appealed to the High Court or any lower court.
• High Court cannot interfere in the decision of the lower court unless there is error apparent on the face of record.

Grounds For Filing CRP:

• The case has been decided by a court subordinate to the High Court.
• No appeal must be filed against the suit in the High Court or any other court which is subordinate to High Court.

The subordinate court appears to have:

• Exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law;
• Failed to exercise jurisdiction vested;
• To have acted in the exercise of the Judge illegally or material irregularity.

To act illegally or material illegality includes a significant ground i.e, Not disposing cases by lower courts for a very long time and failed to give precise reasons. As mentioned in the definition of the section 115, any case which has been decided, not only includes any order made, or but also any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding. So, cases which are not disposed yet and still deciding the issue for years and led to illegality can be set as a ground for filing CRP even though the case is pending, these type of cases also comes under the expression of 'cases which has been decided'.

Pertinent Case Laws:

In The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati

Civil Revision Petition No. 1217 of 2020
Decided On: 07.12.2020
Appellants: Pelluri. Venkata Hanumantha Krishna Murthy Sharma Vs.
Respondent: Pelluri. Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao

Relevant Rules:
Article 21, Article 227 of the Indian constitution
Cases Referred: Rajindera Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. vs. Prem Mai and Ors[2]

Held, It is the duty of the Courts to see that the senior citizens shall be given priority for early disposal of their cases whether those are civil or criminal or service or any type of litigation to enable them to enjoy the fruits of litigation during their life time. The Courts have to remember that the right to speedy trial of cases before the Courts is recognized to be a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the fact that the petitioners are aged about 80 years and 72 years respectively and this Court noticed from the record that some of the respondents are also "senior citizens" who are at the fag-end of their life, they have to feel happy and they have to get fruits of the litigation by rendering speedy justice to them.

Before parting with this case, we feel it appropriate to extract the following observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajindra Singh v. Prem Mai as hereunder[3]: Judgement In the case of Rajindra singh v. Prem Mai is binding as it decided on the basis of Ratio Decidendi i.e, Judge is interpreting the law to the facts of the case and the same was extracted from the above case and inserted in CRP NO. 1217 of 2020.

"People in India are simply disgusted with this state of affairs, and are past loosing faith in the judiciary because of the inordinate delay in disposal of cases. We request the authorities concerned to do the needful in the matter urgently to ensure speedy disposal of cases if the people's faith in the judiciary is to remain."

In the above said circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada to dispose of the I.A. No. 565 of 2011 in O.S. No. 30 of 2002, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order in accordance with law and to file compliance report with the Registrar General of this Court.

All contentions of the parties are kept open

Guidelines Favouring Litigants:

• In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and disposed of. The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to be taken into consideration, while disposing of the cases. The Court shall not pave way for such feeling to the litigants.
   
• The trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of favouritism, nepotism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing of cases selectively will have larger repercussions on the system.
   
• No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently, if there is a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases alone are to be given priority.[4]
   
• The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided. Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered.
   
• High Court cannot issue such directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification or acceptable reason for issuing any such directions. The Court concerned is expected to regulate its own procedures in respect of the cases on Board for effective disposal and to ensure that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time.

Guidelines Against Litigants:

• Filing the Interlocutory Applications repeatedly with an ill motive to prolong and protract the proceedings are to be thwarted. Such applications are to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and if it is found frivolous, then maximum cost is to be imposed.
   
• There cannot be any leniency in dealing with frivolous applications by the Courts. Parties cannot be allowed to achieve their ill-motives by abusing the process of Court or by taking undue advantage of the procedures contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Statutes or Rules concerned.
• Any party having an idea to achieve their goal in an indirect or illegal manner, cannot be tolerated by the Courts. On some occasion, if litigants feel that a particular Judge in the District Judiciary is inconvenient to them, they are seeking adjournments after adjournments or filing frivolous interlocutory applications, which all are causing longevity to the litigation.
• Ill-motives of such litigants if allowed to succeed, then the same will result in miscarriage of justice and thus the Courts are expected to be cautious, while granting unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds. All such attempts should be thwarted by the Courts and the Court cannot aid such ill-motive of the parties.

Conclusion:
There is fault against litigants, as well as the Judiciary system. As mentioned in the definition of section 115 of CPC, the expression of the case which is decided not only means the cases which are decided but also cases which are deciding the issues. So the pending long time cases can be filed in High courts as CRP for an expeditious Justice and to avoid the misleading law in the discretion of lower courts and as a whole it is said to be unjust Judiciary.

Aftermath of the long time pending cases, there is an illegal intention in making the cases to not dispose by litigants for the reasons of filing Interlocutory applications. Such applications are to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and if it is found frivolous, then maximum cost is to be imposed. There cannot be any leniency in dealing with frivolous applications by the Court if litigants feel that a particular Judge in the District Judiciary is inconvenient to them, they are seeking adjournments after adjournments or filing frivolous interlocutory applications, which all are causing longevity to the litigation. Ill-motives of such litigants if allowed to succeed, then the same will result in miscarriage of justice.

The longevity of the litigations are occurring on many occasions at the instance of the Courts. The legal brains are adopting tactical approach to prolong and protract the cases for unjust gains and for Forum Shopping.

Ergo, litigants and as well as Judiciary system should eliminate their individual unjust ways to disseminate the Justice of law.

End-Note:

• India Code
• MANU/SC/7847/2007
• MANU/SC/7847/2007 : (2007) 11 SCC 37 at para No. 11
• Verdictum.in

Written By: Sruthi Reddy,4th Year Law Student