A revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts and District Courts to prevent miscarriage of justice arising from jurisdictional errors by subordinate courts. Unlike appeals, revision is not a matter of right and lies only in exceptional circumstances where no appeal is available and the subordinate court has either exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is a discretionary remedy and a tool for judicial oversight, rather than for reappreciation of facts or evidence.

RELEVANT PROVISION:

• Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

NATURE OF REMEDY:

In the case of Zafar Ahmed vs. Abdul Khaliq [PLD 1964 Kar. 149], it was held that revision is a discretionary remedy, and the court is not bound to interfere even if the conditions under clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Section 115 are fulfilled.

SCOPE OF REVISIONARY POWER:

The revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked unless the following conditions are met:

a) The order is passed by a subordinate court;
b) No appeal lies against such order;
c) The court has either:

• Exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law;

• Failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested; or

• Acted illegally or with material irregularity.

FORUM OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 115:

1. High Court [Section 115(1)]:

The High Court may call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate court and in which no appeal lies, if the subordinate court:

• Exercised jurisdiction not vested in it;

• Failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it;

• Acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

2. District Court [Section 115(2)]:

The District Court can also exercise revisional powers if:

• The decision was made by a subordinate court;

• No appeal lies against such decision;

• The value of the subject matter is within the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court.

FINALITY OF ORDERS IN REVISION [Section 115(3) & (4)]:

• Once a revision has been filed either before the High Court or the District Court, no further application lies before either court.

• No revision lies before the High Court against an order made by the District Court in revision under Section 115(2).

PROCEDURE:

• The court may act suo motu or on application.

• The applicant must file the revision within 90 days of the decision of the subordinate court and attach certified copies of pleadings, documents, and the impugned order.

• The subordinate court must provide a certified copy within three days of the decision.

• The High Court is expected to decide the revision within six months.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPEAL AND REVISION:

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVIEW AND REVISION:

CONCLUSION:

Revision under Section 115 CPC is not a substitute for appeal or review but a limited and exceptional remedy to correct jurisdictional errors or grave procedural irregularities by subordinate courts. The scope of this power is narrow and discretionary, aimed at preventing a miscarriage of justice without allowing a full rehearing on facts. Courts exercise this power cautiously to balance the principles of finality of litigation and fairness of procedure. Understanding the distinction between appeal, revision, and review is crucial to invoking the appropriate remedy in accordance with the nature of the grievance and procedural context.