What is distinction between appellate powers and revisional powers?

 The distinction between appellate powers and revisional powers under Indian law is fundamental to understanding judicial review mechanisms. Here is a detailed explanation as per Indian legal principles:

Appellate Powers

• Nature and Scope: Appellate power is the authority of a higher court to review, re-examine, and potentially overturn or modify the decision of a lower court. It is a statutory and substantive right; parties have a right to appeal if the statute provides for it.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Taking cognizance of an offence and summoning the accused is an intermediate order against which revision is maintainable

 There are three categories of orders that a court can pass-final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction-that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. 

{Para 17}

 21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0103/1977 : (1977) 4 SCC 551 by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind-an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an Accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an Accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the Accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of 2017 

Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. C.B.I.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A.K. Sikri, JJ.

Author: Madan B. Lokur, J.

Decided On: 13.07.2017

Citation: MANU/SC/0829/2017

Print Page

What are limitations for exercise of revisional powers under CRPC?

The revision power under the code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court inKanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/0004/2000 : 2000CriLJ746 has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (crl.) 1138 of 2001

Decided On: 06.11.2001

 Munna Devi Vs  State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.B. Shah and R.P. Sethi, JJ.

Citation:  2001 (3) ACR 2363 (SC)

Print Page

Whether order of maintenance passed in favour of wife can be set aside if she is not ready to comply decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed against her?

 Fact remains that the husband Saranan Banerjee had, obtained a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights as against Aparna Banerjee and in spite of conciliation and efforts she is not inclined to live with her husband on the plea that a case for the offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. was pending against the husband on the allegation of torture, misbehaviour, demand of dowry and many other allegations and for such reason she is apprehensive at the hands of her husband Saranan Banerjee. The judgment passed and decree prepared under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights is decreed, which cannot be executed by force. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the maintenance amount awarded to the wife Aparna Banerjee and her daughter cannot be sweeped and set aside only on the ground that she was not inclined to abide by the decree of the restitution of conjugal rights prepared against her. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Crl. Rev. No. 325 of 2018

Decided On: 07.02.2018

 Vimal Kumar Verma Vs.  Kavita Verma and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aniruddha Singh, J.

Citation: 2018 (105) ACC 394

Print Page

Whether party can challenge jurisdiction of court at appellate stage or revisional stage?

 Now, reverting back to facts of this case it is
apparent from the judgment dated 22.10.2016 of
Additional District Judge, that no objection to the
competence of Additional District Judge to decide the
case was taken by any of the parties. No objection
having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Additional District Judge, Section 21 of the Civil
Procedure Code comes into play. Subsection
(2) of
Section 21 provides that no objection as to the
competence of the Court with reference to the pecuniary

limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by any
Appellate or Revisional Court unless conditions
mentioned therein are fulfilled. No objection having
been raised by respondent tenant regarding competence of
the Court. Subsection
(2) precludes the revisionist to
raise any objection regarding competence of the court
and further revisional court ought not to have allowed
such objection regarding competence of Court of
Additional District Judge to decide the suit. The
respondent tenant did not raise any objection regarding
competence of the Court and took a chance to obtain
judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed
to turnround
and contend that the court of Additional
District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the Small
Cause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and
nullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any such
objection by unsuccessful party who did not raise any
objection regarding competence of court and allowed the
matter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding the
small cause suit by Additional District Judge, the

tenant has not proved that there has been a consequent
failure of justice.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.90519052
OF 2018
(arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 42754276
of 2017)

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs  VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR

Dated:October 12,2018.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Print Page

Important judgments on rent law part 3

1)When revision is tenable against orders passed under Maharashtra rent control Act?

For an order to be revisable under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the order must affect the very existence of the suit or the foundation of the party's case in their pleadings and not merely a procedural order, not affecting the substantive rights of parties, though such procedural order may ultimately affect the strength or weakness of the case of the aggrieved litigant which is to be finally determined at the trial while passing the decree in the suit or final order in the proceeding.

85. Following are instances of revisable orders.

(i) an order refusing leave to amend the plaint or written statement, where the proposed amendment is for assertion of rights or liabilities under the Rent Act or any other substantive law

(ii) an order rejecting an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC

Print Page

Whether Company will get the protection of Maharashtra Rent control Act if it fails to prove that on the date of filing of the suit, its paid-up share capital was below Rs. 1 Crore?

The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Civil Revision Application can in brief be stated thus:-

The Applicant herein is the original Defendant No. 1 in the suit in question being TER Suit No. 48/62/2009. The said suit has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein who are the original Plaintiffs. The said suit has been preceded by a Notice dated 11/02/2009, served/received by the Defendant No. 1 on 14/02/2009, by which the tenancy of the Applicant herein in respect of the plot of land in question came to be terminated. The said suit has been filed for possession of the premises. In so far as the plaint is concerned, it has been averred in the plaint that the Applicant herein is a public limited company and its share capital is over Rs. 1 Crore and therefore it is not entitled to the protection of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short "the Rent Act.) In the said suit the Respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein filed an application (Exhibit 9) for interim relief.

3. To the said application, the Applicant herein i.e. the Defendant No. 1 filed a reply wherein a preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain and try the suit under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act (for short "the PSCC Act") was raised. It was the case of the Applicant that its share capital is Rs. 93,74,000/- which was below Rs. 1 Crore and therefore it is entitled to the protection of the Rent Act. 
 It is well settled that in so far as the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 is concerned, it is constricted, and only if there is an error of jurisdiction committed by the Courts below that interference with the orders passed by the Courts below is warranted. In the instant case, as indicated above the Defendant No. 1 has failed to prove its case that on the date of filing of the suit i.e. on 17/03/2009, its paid up share capital was below Rs. 1 Crore. As indicated above the circumstances on record are such that it makes the case of the Defendant No. 1 highly improbable whereas the case of the Plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint can be said to be in the realm of probability.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 267 of 2017

Decided On: 07.06.2017

New Era Fabrics Ltd. Vs. Bhanumati Keshrichand and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Savant, J.

Citation: 2017(5) MHLJ781,MANU/MH/1026/2017 

Print Page

When revision is tenable against orders passed under Maharashtra rent control Act?

For an order to be revisable under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the order must affect the very existence of the suit or the foundation of the party's case in their pleadings and not merely a procedural order, not affecting the substantive rights of parties, though such procedural order may ultimately affect the strength or weakness of the case of the aggrieved litigant which is to be finally determined at the trial while passing the decree in the suit or final order in the proceeding.

85. Following are instances of revisable orders.

(i) an order refusing leave to amend the plaint or written statement, where the proposed amendment is for assertion of rights or liabilities under the Rent Act or any other substantive law

(ii) an order rejecting an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC

(iii) an order allowing or rejecting an application for a declaration that the suit has abated

(iv) an order refusing to extend the time for filing a written statement

(v) an order for deleting an issue pertaining to rights or liabilities under the Rent Act, or any other substantive law

This list is illustrative and not exhaustive.

86. Following are instances of orders which would not be revisable orders:-

(i) an order granting leave to amend plaint or written statement

(ii) an order granting extension of time to file written statement

(iii) an order raising additional issue

(iv) an order made for production of documents or discovery or inspection.

(v) an order directing a plaintiff/defendant to furnish better and further particulars

(vi) an order issuing or refusing to issue a commission for examination of witnesses

(vii) an order issuing or refusing to issue summons for additional witness or document

(viii) an order condoning delay in filing documents, after the first date of hearing.

(ix) an order of costs to one of the parties for its default

(x) an order granting or refusing an adjournment

(xi) an order allowing an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC

This list is also illustrative and not exhaustive.

87. As regards question No. 1 about scope and ambit of power of revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, our answer is that after the revisional Court is satisfied about maintainability of the revision application, the revisional Court will consider whether the impugned order is according to law. However, "according to law" refers to the order as a whole, and is not to be equated to errors of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers to the overall order, which must be according to law, which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of justice due to mistake of law. Hence, mere breach of, or non-conformity with, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act or similar other procedural laws, will not be a ground for interfering with the impugned order of the trial Court. The revisional powers are intended to be exercised with a view to subserve and not to defeat the ends of justice. As a general rule where substantial justice has been done by order of the lower Court, the revisional Court will not interfere with it notwithstanding the fact that the reasons for the order are not correct or the order is improper or irregular. The writ petitions will now go back to the learned Single Judge for hearing and deciding them in light of the principles laid down in this judgment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition Nos. 9562, 8029 and 907 of 2010

Decided On: 21.01.2013

 Bhartiben Shah, Vs. Smt. Gracy Thomas and Others

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: 
M.S. Shah, C.J., R.V. More & N.M. Jamdar, JJ.
Citation:2013(2) ALLMR 9 FB

Print Page

Whether quashing of prosecution is not permissible if revisional jurisdiction is available?

 In our considered view any attempt to explain the law further as regards the issue
relating to inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
unwarranted. We would simply reiterate that Section 482 begins with a
non-obstante clause to state: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” A fortiori, there
can be no total ban on the exercise of such wholesome jurisdiction where, in the
words of Krishna Iyer, J. “abuse of the process of the Court or other extraordinary
situation excites the court’s jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing
more.” We venture to add a further reason in support. Since Section 397 Cr.P.C.
is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit
the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only to petty
interlocutory orders! A situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 842 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 3314 of 2009]
Prabhu Chawla
V
State of Rajasthan & Anr
Citation: 2016 SCCONLINESC905

Print Page

What is distinction between appellate powers and revisional powers?

Section 50 of the Code deals with revision. The revisional authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it call for, and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by such officer. He is equipped with the power to pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit. Justice Gulab Gupta in 1985 RN 181 (Ghurwa Ram & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) opined that there is distinction between appellate powers and revisional powers. It is held that appeal is considered to be a continuation of the proceedings and the entire proceedings are before the appellate authority which has the power of reviewing evidence. There is no such power with the revisional authority. Indeed the revisional powers vested in an authority are similar to the power of issuing certiorari vested in the High Court and is limited to keeping the subordinate court within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It is apposite to mention here that in Ghurwa Ram (supra) this Court opined that the propriety that has to be considered is the propriety of the order challenged in revision and not of the original order.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramgopal Sharma vs Kamla Bai on 28 October, 2015

                                 WP.6949/2014                             

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         BENCH AT GWALIOR
                       JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL.
                  Citation;AIR 2016(NOC)161 MP

Print Page

Supreme Court: Distinction between revisional and Appellate jurisdiction of court

 It is trite legal position that appellate jurisdiction is coextensive with original court's jurisdiction as for appraisal and appreciation of evidence and reaching findings on facts and appellate court is free to reach its own conclusion on evidence untrammeled by any finding entered by the trial court. Reversional powers on the other hand belong to supervisory jurisdiction of a superior court. While exercising reversional powers the court has to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and also whether the subordinate court has kept itself within the bounds of is jurisdiction vested in it. Though the difference between the two jurisdictions is subtle, it is quite real and has now become well recognised in legal provinces.

Supreme Court of India

The Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Keshvanand on 16 December, 1997

Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, K.T. Thomas

Citations: AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 596,

Print Page