Two things happened to civil revision, and a great deal of what is written about it predates both. The first was statutory. The proviso to section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was substituted by the Amendment Act of 1999 and came into force on 1 July 2002, and it says that the High Court shall not vary or reverse an order made in the course of a suit unless the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. Read what that does. Soundness is no longer the measure. What counts is whether a ruling in your favour would have brought the proceeding to its end on the spot — and on most interim orders it would not have. The remedy did not disappear; it stopped reaching the orders people most want to use it on. The second was judicial, and it closed the detour. For twelve years the answer to a barred revision was a writ: Surya Dev Rai, decided 7 August 2003, held that certiorari under Article 226 lay against the judicial orders of a civil court. On 26 February 2015, three Judges in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath answered a reference and held that judicial orders of a civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and that the contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled. What survived is Article 227, which the Court was careful to say is a distinct jurisdiction and remains unaffected despite the 1999 curtailment. It is not a replacement for either, and it is not a spare key. So the useful question is not whether your order was wrong. It is a different one, and it is the one this page is built around: had it been decided your way, would the suit have finished?
What is on this page
The word does duty for three different exercises and the confusion costs people real time. There is the civil revision this page is about, which lives in section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and runs to the High Court. There is the criminal revisional structure, which is in an entirely separate statute with its own test and its own hierarchy. And there is the loose, everyday use of the word to mean any attempt to get an order looked at again, which covers appeal, review and this, and tells you nothing.
When an enquiry reaches us saying the client wants to file a revision, the first thing we do is find out which of the three they mean, because the answer changes the forum, the period and whether the exercise is possible at all. Roughly half of them turn out to want something else.
Settle the word before anything else. Civil revision, criminal revision and the everyday use of the word are three different things, and the first question on any enquiry is which one is meant. The forum, the period and whether the remedy exists at all change with the answer.
Everything below is the civil side. If your matter began with an FIR or a complaint before a Magistrate, stop here and go to criminal revision instead, because nothing on this page transfers across.
For most of the twentieth century section 115 was a broad and frequently used supervisory remedy. A litigant who felt the trial court had gone outside its powers, or had refused to use powers it had, or had conducted itself irregularly in the exercise of them, could carry that complaint to the High Court without waiting for the suit to finish. High Courts entertained a great many such petitions, and that is precisely what became the problem.
The volume was not the only objection to it. A suit in which every interlocutory order could be carried upward is a suit that does not progress, and the practice of using revision to stall became well enough known to attract legislative attention.
The response was the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999. Its section 12 substituted the proviso to section 115(1) and inserted a new sub-section (3), and both were brought into force on 1 July 2002. Those two changes are the reason the remedy you have read about in older material is not the remedy available to you.
The date is worth fixing in your mind. Any discussion of section 115 written or recorded before 1 July 2002 describes a wider power than exists. A surprising amount of what circulates online, including material that looks current, is describing the position before that date without saying so.
It is short, and it rewards being read slowly rather than summarised. The High Court shall not, under the section, vary or reverse any order made 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 proceeding.
Three features of that sentence do all the work. It is a prohibition addressed to the High Court rather than a condition imposed on the applicant. It operates on orders made in the course of a suit, which is to say the interlocutory ones. And its test is counterfactual: it asks what would have happened had the order gone the other way.
Proviso to section 115(1), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — substituted by section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 46 of 1999), in force 1 July 2002. The High Court is barred from varying or reversing an order made in the course of a suit or other proceeding unless that order, had it been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.
Sub-section (3) — inserted by the same Act, in force on the same date. A revision does not operate to stay the suit or other proceeding before the court except where that suit or proceeding is stayed by the High Court.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Before 2002 the question a litigant asked was whether the court below had erred in one of the ways the section recognises. That question still has to be answered, but it is now the second question rather than the first, and answering it first is how people waste months.
The question that comes first is the counterfactual in the proviso. Imagine the application that produced your order had succeeded instead of failed, or failed instead of succeeded. Would the suit have been over at that moment. Not shortened, not improved, not made easier to win. Over.
Where the truthful reply is that it would not, the High Court is powerless to vary or reverse the order under this section however plainly wrong it was. That is a difficult thing to absorb, because it means the merits of the complaint are never reached. The gate is shut before anybody looks at what is behind it.
Put it to yourself in one sentence. Had the court decided this my way, would there have been anything left to try. If there would, the proviso bars the petition, and the energy belongs somewhere else.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Run the counterfactual across the orders people actually complain about and the pattern becomes obvious. An order allowing an amendment to a pleading: had it been refused, the suit would have continued on the unamended pleading. An order appointing a commissioner: had it been refused, the suit would have continued without the report. An order on discovery, on an adjournment, on framing an additional issue, on summoning a witness. In each case refusing the application leaves the suit standing.
That is why the proviso removed so much of the remedy in practice while removing none of its words. The section still speaks of jurisdictional error in the same terms it always did. What changed is the class of order the High Court may do anything about.
The orders that survive the proviso are the ones where a decision the other way would have been terminal. They exist, they are a real category, and they are the subject of a later part of this page. But they are the minority, and anybody who tells you otherwise is working from a pre-2002 picture.
There is a second bar and it is independent of the first. Sub-section (2) provides that the High Court shall not, under the section, vary or reverse a decree or order against which an appeal lies, whether to the High Court or to a court subordinate to it.
This catches people who assume revision is a lighter, cheaper alternative they may choose instead of appealing. It is not an alternative. It is residual, available where the appellate route is not, and the existence of an appeal anywhere in the structure closes it, including an appeal to a court below the High Court.
So the forum question has to be settled before anything else. Where an appeal lies, the work you want is appeal drafting, with its own period and its own form. Discovering the bar after a revision has been filed is expensive twice over, because the appeal period has been running throughout.
The sequence that avoids this. Ask whether an appeal lies before asking whether the order is revisable. The first question is usually answerable in one call to the filing counter; the second takes a consultation. Doing them the other way round is the commonest wasted fortnight in this area.
Sub-section (3) was inserted alongside the new proviso and it removes an assumption that used to be widespread. The suit below is not held merely because a revision has been filed against an order in it. It is held only if the High Court says so.
The practical effect is that the trial keeps its dates. Evidence can be recorded, issues can be tried, and the proceeding can advance a long way while a petition sits in the High Court list. Clients who have filed and then stopped attending the trial court have lost matters that way, and the loss is entirely self-inflicted.
The appeal side has a comparable position expressed in a different rule, and it is set out on its own page rather than repeated here. What matters for you is the instruction that follows from it: keep appearing below, keep instructing counsel below, and treat the petition as something running in parallel rather than something that has taken over.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Section 115 operates on a case which has been decided, and the Code supplies an Explanation telling you how wide that expression is. It includes an order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding.
Taken alone, that is generous. It means a litigant does not have to wait for a final decree before an order becomes capable of being looked at, and it prevents the argument that an interlocutory order is not a decision at all.
But the Explanation and the proviso pull against each other, and in most matters the proviso wins. The Explanation lets an interlocutory order through the definition; the proviso then stops the High Court from varying or reversing it unless the counterfactual is satisfied. Reading the Explanation without the proviso produces exactly the optimism this page is trying to correct.
A useful way to hold the two together. The Explanation decides whether the thing is the kind of order the section speaks about. The proviso decides whether the High Court may do anything about it. Passing the first test tells you very little.
It is worth being clear about the nature of the request, because it shapes how the document has to read. You are not asking the High Court to decide your dispute, or to take a different view of the facts, or to be fairer than the court below was. You are asking it to look at how the court below used the authority it had.
Complaints of that kind divide by what triggers them rather than by the order they appear in the section. Some arise because a court reached for something that was never within its power to do. Some arise because a court treated itself as powerless when the power was there, and declined to act. And some arise not from the power itself but from the way it was used, where the court had the authority but went about exercising it in a manner the law does not permit.
Those three triggers are proved in quite different ways, and a petition that blurs them is weaker than one that picks the right one and stays with it. The distinction between this and the other routes out of an adverse order is drawn on our review petition page, and it is worth reading alongside this one.
Once the proviso had closed most of section 115, the obvious question for litigants and advocates alike was whether the Constitution offered anything. A High Court has powers that an amendment to the Code cannot touch, and it did not take long for that argument to be made.
It was made successfully, and for about twelve years the standard answer to a barred revision was a writ petition. Practitioners who qualified in that period learned it as the ordinary workaround, used it regularly, and in many cases are still using it.
That is why your advocate may be offering it to you in complete good faith. The route existed, it worked, and the judgment that created it is still quoted everywhere. The difficulty is only that it was overruled, and overruling is not something a busy practice always notices in a field it visits occasionally.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai was decided on 7 August 2003 by two Judges, and is reported at AIR 2003 SC 3044 and at (2003) 6 SCC 675. It held that a writ of certiorari under Article 226 was available against the judicial orders of a civil court, and it went further, observing that in practice the distinction between Article 226 and Article 227 had become largely obliterated.
Both parts of that mattered. The first opened a route that the 1999 amendment had appeared to close. The second meant that a petitioner who was imprecise about which article he was invoking was unlikely to be penalised for it, which made the route easy to use.
A judgment that solves a problem the legislature has just created tends to be quoted for a long time after it stops being good law. This is the clearest example of it in civil practice.
A view taken by two Judges that sits awkwardly with earlier authority does not last indefinitely. The question of whether a writ under Article 226 lies against the judicial order of a civil court was referred for an authoritative answer, and the fact of a reference is itself significant: it means the Court was settling the point rather than deciding another case in which the point happened to arise.
The reference was answered in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath on 26 February 2015. The Bench was of three Judges, H. L. Dattu Chief Justice of India, A. K. Sikri and Adarsh Kumar Goel JJ, and the judgment was delivered by Goel J. It is reported at AIR 2015 SC 3269.
Three Judges answering a reference and departing from two Judges is as clear as this process gets. There is no room left for the argument that the earlier view survives in some reduced form.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
The Court held that judicial orders of a civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It held that Article 226 and Article 227 are distinct jurisdictions, rejecting the earlier observation that the difference had been obliterated in practice. And it stated that the contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled.
For anybody holding an adverse order from a civil court, the consequence is immediate. The petition that a great deal of published material still recommends, drawn as a writ of certiorari, is open to an objection at the threshold, and the objection succeeds.
Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath — Supreme Court of India, decided 26 February 2015 by a Bench of three Judges (H. L. Dattu CJI, A. K. Sikri and Adarsh Kumar Goel JJ, judgment by Goel J), reported at AIR 2015 SC 3269. Answering a reference, the Court held that judicial orders of a civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; that Articles 226 and 227 are distinct jurisdictions; and that the contrary view taken in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai is overruled. The Court recorded that supervision over subordinate courts is exercised through appellate or revisional powers or through Article 227, and that notwithstanding the curtailment of section 115 in 1999 the High Court jurisdiction under Article 227 remains unaffected.
Two things did not survive. The availability of certiorari under Article 226 against the judicial order of a civil court, and the idea that the two articles may be treated as interchangeable in practice.
One thing survived expressly, and the Court was careful about it. Article 227 remains, and the judgment records that the curtailment of section 115 in 1999 left it unaffected. That is a deliberate statement rather than an aside, and it is the sentence a litigant in your position should take away.
What also survived, and gets forgotten, is the ordinary machinery of the trial court itself. The court that made an order can very often modify, clarify or vary it on a properly framed application, and that remedy was never touched by any of this. It is cheaper, faster and closer, and it is skipped far more often than it should be.
Having said that Article 227 survived, it is necessary to say immediately what it is not. It is not section 115 with a different number, and treating it as a substitute is the error that follows naturally from being told the first two doors are shut.
It is a supervisory power, constitutional rather than statutory, and it is used sparingly. A petition under it that in substance complains that the court below weighed the material badly is read as the appeal it really is, and is dealt with accordingly. The full account of what the article is for, and how it differs from the writ jurisdiction, is set out on our Delhi High Court page rather than duplicated here.
Whether your facts can be put in a form that the article recognises is a judgment about your papers. It is counsel work, it is not ours, and it is not something that can be settled from a web page by either of us.
What we will not do. We will not tell you that Article 227 is available on your facts, and we will not draft a petition under it on the assumption that it is. Where that is the direction, the drafting begins with counsel settling what is being alleged.
A reader might reasonably ask why any of this matters if the petition ends up in the same building either way. It matters because the objection is taken at the threshold and because the clock does not stop while it is argued.
A petition filed in a form that does not lie is not corrected quietly. It is listed, objected to, and either returned or dismissed, and the weeks that takes are weeks subtracted from whatever other remedy existed. On a subject where the periods are short and not uniform, that is frequently the whole of the available time.
There is a second cost that is harder to measure. A litigant who has spent money being told at the first hearing that his petition does not lie tends to conclude that the system is closed to him, and stops. The remedy he actually had goes unused because the wrong one was tried first.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Search this subject and you will find a great deal of material describing section 115 as a broad supervisory power over interlocutory orders, and a good deal recommending a writ under Article 226 where revision is barred, on the authority of the 2003 judgment. Both are written with conviction and neither carries a date that warns you.
The two tests that sort it take under a minute. Does the material mention the proviso and the counterfactual it contains. Does it mention the 2015 decision. Material that discusses section 115 at length without the first is describing the pre-2002 position; material that recommends certiorari against a civil court order without the second is eleven years out of date.
Two words to search for. In anything you read on this subject, look for the words finally disposed and for the name Chhabi Nath. An article that contains neither is not describing the law as it stands, whatever its publication date says.
Nearly every enquiry we receive on this subject opens with the grievance. The court did not hear me properly, the other side was favoured, my application was adjourned repeatedly. Those may all be true and none of them is where the analysis starts.
It starts with the order itself, as a document. What was applied for, in whose application, and what did the court direct. Those three facts, read from the order rather than remembered, determine everything that follows, and they are frequently different from the client account of them.
This is why the first thing we ask for is every page of the order rather than a summary. The operative part is often shorter than clients expect and occasionally says something nobody noticed, including, now and then, that the thing they are upset about was not actually ordered.
The first of the two statutory tests is the easy one, and the Explanation makes it easier. An order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding is within the expression, so most substantive interlocutory orders pass.
What tends not to pass is an order that decides nothing: a pure adjournment, a direction to file something by a date, a listing order. There is no issue determined in any of those, and the complaint about them, if there is one, is of a different kind entirely.
Because this test is easy, it is also misleading. Clearing it produces a feeling of progress that the second test is about to remove, which is why this page sets them out in this order rather than the other.
There is a further wrinkle worth knowing before you spend time on this limb. Whether something decided an issue is judged by what the court actually determined, not by how the order is captioned. An order headed as a direction can decide an issue, and an order that reads like a determination can turn out, on examination, to have deferred everything it appeared to settle. Read the operative paragraphs rather than the heading.
Here is the exercise, and it has to be done honestly, which is harder than it sounds when it is your own suit.
Take the application that produced the order. Assume the court decided it the way you wanted. Now ask what the court file would look like the next morning. If there is still a suit, with issues to try and a decree to be passed at the end, the proviso bars the High Court from varying or reversing the order. If the suit would have been at an end, it does not.
The honesty matters because the temptation is to answer that the suit would have been effectively over, or would have collapsed, or that the other side would have given up. The proviso is not interested in any of that. It asks whether the suit or other proceeding would have been finally disposed of.
The word carrying the weight is finally. Not substantially, not in practice, not for all realistic purposes. The test is whether the proceeding would have ended, and a suit that would have continued in a weakened form is a suit that would have continued.
Worked examples do more than explanation here, so four, each run through the counterfactual. These are illustrations of the method rather than rulings on any particular set of facts.
| The order you have | Had it gone your way, would the suit have ended | Where that leaves you |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment of the plaint allowed | No — the suit continues on the unamended pleading | Proviso bars it; the complaint is preserved against the decree |
| Local commissioner appointed | No — the suit continues without the report | Proviso bars it; the trial court can be asked to modify |
| Application rejecting the plaint dismissed | Yes — allowing it would have ended the suit | Outside the proviso; the other tests still have to be met |
| Objection that the court lacks jurisdiction overruled | Potentially yes, depending on what was sought and what would have followed | Turns on the papers; this is a question for counsel, not a web page |
Notice what the third and fourth rows have in common. They are orders about whether the suit should exist at all, rather than about how it should be conducted. That is the shape of what survived the proviso.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
The category is narrower than it used to be and it is not empty. Broadly, orders where a decision the other way would have terminated the proceeding: refusals of applications that would have ended the suit had they succeeded, and determinations going to whether the suit can proceed at all.
It is a category defined by consequence rather than by subject matter, which is why no list of order types is reliable. The same kind of application can fall inside the proviso in one suit and outside it in another, depending on what was asked and what the suit consists of.
That is an unsatisfying answer and it is the correct one. Anybody offering a list of revisable orders is offering something the statute does not support, and the list will be wrong for a predictable share of its readers.
Most of the conduct of a trial. Amendments, discovery and inspection, commissions, additional issues, summoning and recalling witnesses, adjournments, directions about the manner of recording evidence, costs orders along the way. Each of them can be badly decided and none of them, on a decision the other way, would have ended the suit.
This is the part of the page that disappoints, and it is better to be disappointed now than after a filing fee. The loss is real: a litigant may have to conduct an entire trial under an order he believes is wrong, with the cost and delay that involves.
What he does not lose is the complaint itself. It survives, in a different place and at a different time, which is the subject of the next two sections.
It is worth being precise about what has been lost, because the loss is often overstated in both directions. The order remains wrong, if it was wrong. The error remains on the record. What has gone is only the ability to have the High Court correct it under this section at this moment. That is a real deprivation and it is narrower than the despair it usually produces.
The practical consequence to plan for. You may have to conduct the rest of the trial under an order you believe is wrong, while keeping the objection alive on the record. That is uncomfortable and it is survivable, and it is a very different thing from having no remedy at all.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
A surprising proportion of the complaints that arrive here have a remedy in the court that made the order, and nobody has suggested it. A court that has directed something can be asked to clarify its scope, to modify it on changed facts, or to vary it on terms. None of that is barred by the proviso, by sub-section (2), or by anything decided in 2015.
It is also faster and cheaper by a wide margin, and it has a feature that appeals to nobody until they have tried the alternative: the judge hearing it already knows the matter.
The application has to be specific and it has to carry figures or documents rather than complaint. An application saying the direction is causing hardship goes nowhere. An application annexing the contract, showing the monthly loss and offering an undertaking is a different document with a different chance.
Before looking upward, ask one question of the court below. Can what I object to be clarified, modified or varied on an application supported by material. On interim directions the answer is yes far more often than litigants are told.
Where the proviso bars the petition and the trial court will not vary the order, the remaining course is to carry the complaint forward and raise it against the decree when the decree is challenged. Clients hear this as being told to give up and it is not that.
An interlocutory error does not evaporate because it could not be taken up at the time. It becomes part of the case against the eventual decree, and it is argued then, by which point its actual effect on the outcome can be demonstrated rather than predicted. Occasionally that makes the point stronger than it would have been.
What this requires is record-keeping, and it is where matters are quietly lost. The objection has to be taken at the time, on the record, so that it is not met later with the answer that nobody complained. Our legal file management work exists largely for situations like this one, where something has to survive two or three years of a trial in a form somebody else can use.
You will have noticed that no number has appeared anywhere above, and that is deliberate rather than an omission. The period for a civil revision, the court fee on it and the form it takes are not fixed by a single national provision.
We have seen pages confidently giving one figure for the whole country. It will be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else, and a reader who relies on it in the wrong State has lost the remedy rather than made a minor error. On limitation there is no safe approximation.
What we will do instead is establish the position for the High Court that governs your matter and put it on the date sheet with its source noted beside it, so that nobody on your side is relying on a number whose origin they cannot name.
Civil procedure is a subject on which both Parliament and the State legislatures can legislate, and the States have used that power on this section more than on almost any other in the Code. Some have amended section 115 for their own territory. Some have provided a different forum for revision in certain classes of matter. The periods, the fees and the prescribed forms sit partly in State legislation and partly in the rules each High Court makes for its own registry.
The result is that two litigants with identical orders in different States can face different periods, pay different fees and file on different forms. There is nothing irregular about that; it is how the subject is structured.
It does mean that the useful unit of research is your own High Court rather than the country. The question is not what the period for a civil revision is. It is what the period is in the High Court that governs the court that passed your order.
The first fact to establish, before anything else. Which High Court governs the court that made your order. Everything procedural follows from that one answer, and getting it wrong wastes the whole of the preparation that comes after.
Whatever the period turns out to be, there is one step that should happen before anybody has worked it out, and it should happen on the day the order is pronounced. Apply in writing for a certified copy, pay whatever the counter asks, and keep the stamped acknowledgement.
It costs very little, it commits you to nothing, and it cannot be done retrospectively. A client who decides first and applies afterwards has usually given away the days in between, and those days are not recoverable by explanation.
If you want the copy handled rather than done yourself, it is straightforward work and we treat it as certified true copy assistance. But if there is any delay in instructing anybody, send a clerk tomorrow rather than waiting for us. The date on the acknowledgement is the thing that matters, and whose handwriting is on the application is not.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Limitation law allows a litigant the time properly taken up in obtaining the copies he needs, which is why the application date matters so much. The detailed working of those exclusions, the provisions they come from and the trap buried in them is set out at length on our appeal drafting page, and there is no reason to say it twice.
What is worth saying here is the part people misread. The allowance is for time taken in getting the copy, not for time spent deciding whether to use it. Deliberation is yours and it is counted against you.
So the right order of operations is to secure the copy and the date first, and to think afterwards. Thinking first feels more responsible and is, on the arithmetic, considerably more expensive.
One further caution about relying on the exclusion at all. It is a concession that has to be established on the papers, which means the acknowledgement, the date of readiness and the date of delivery all need to be capable of proof. A litigant who says the copy took five weeks and cannot show when it was asked for is not in a position to claim the five weeks.
Keep the receipt, keep the envelope or the delivery endorsement, and keep them with the order rather than loose. It is a two-minute discipline that occasionally decides whether a petition is in time.
Where the period has gone, the position is not automatically hopeless, but it changes shape. A late filing must travel with a separate request setting out the reason for the lateness, sworn on affidavit, and that reason has to account for the whole of the period rather than the interesting parts of it.
Courts are considerably more receptive to an honest account of an ordinary failure than to a polished one with gaps. Illness, a file held by a previous advocate, a copy that genuinely took weeks to issue, a client who was not told the order had been passed: these are real and they are explicable. What does not work is an explanation that covers four of the eight weeks and is silent about the rest.
The one thing to avoid absolutely is backdating anything or describing an application as having been made when it was not. We will not prepare a document that says so, and it is the kind of thing that is discovered.
Tell us the bad dates in the first message. Not the fourth. A delay disclosed at the start is a problem to be addressed in the drafting; the same delay discovered after a draft has been prepared on a different assumption means the work is done twice and the explanation looks worse.
The section works by the High Court calling for the record of the case from the court below. That is the mechanism, and it has a consequence that saves clients money: you are not required to produce the entire trial record yourself.
What you produce is the material that lets the High Court see, from the papers in front of it, that the complaint is worth looking at. The full record follows if the Court wants it.
Clients regularly arrive with cartons. It is a generous instinct and it is the wrong one, because a petition accompanied by everything invites the reading that nothing in particular has been identified. Selection is the work.
There is a second reason the mechanism matters, and it is about timing rather than cost. Because the Court can send for the record, the absence of some document from your own compilation is not usually fatal in the way it would be in a proceeding where you bear the whole burden of production. What is fatal is failing to identify what the complaint is, because no amount of record calls for itself.
So the compilation is an argument about relevance expressed as a bundle. Every document in it should be there because a numbered ground needs it, and the bundle should be small enough that a reader can see which is which.
A short list, and each item earns its place by being something a ground points at. The order complained of, complete and legible, including the last page where the operative direction usually sits. The application that produced it, with whatever was filed in support. Any reply filed to that application. The pleadings, because jurisdictional complaints are usually tested against what was pleaded. And the order sheet entries covering the relevant dates.
Documents going to the merits of the dispute mostly do not belong. If your ground is that the court assumed a power it did not have, the sale deed is irrelevant to it, however important it is to the suit.
A filter worth applying to every document before it goes in. Which numbered ground does this support, and at which page. If the answer is that it is useful background, it is not for this paper book. Background belongs in the suit, and the suit is a different exercise with different documents.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
The grounds are the document. They should be numbered, each confined to a single complaint, stated without narrative and without argument, and expressed in a way that lets a reader verify them from a page of the paper book.
The commonest fault is length, and it comes from a decent instinct: the client feels unheard and wants the full story in. The effect is the opposite of the one intended. A petition that recites the history of the dispute reads as an appeal, and reading as an appeal is fatal in a jurisdiction that is not one.
The second commonest fault is mixing the triggers. A single ground that complains the court had no power to make the order, and also that it made it unfairly, and also that the finding was wrong, gives a judge three things to reject in one paragraph. Separate them and let each stand or fall alone.
The test we apply to every ground before it leaves us. Can a judge check this against one identified page. If yes, it is a ground. If checking it requires reading the file and forming a view, it is a submission, and submissions belong to counsel.
An affidavit is sworn with the petition, and it should be read against the grounds before it is sworn rather than afterwards. The two documents are prepared at different moments and they drift apart more easily than people expect.
Two specific checks. Every factual assertion in the grounds should have a corresponding statement in the affidavit, and nothing should be verified as true to personal knowledge where it is in fact a matter of record or of information received. Deponents sign these without reading the verification clause, and it is the clause most likely to be used against them.
Where the deponent is not the party, for instance a relative or an employee acting on an authority, that authority has to exist and has to cover what is being done. Drawing it properly is power of attorney drafting and it is better settled before the filing than at the counter.
Returning to the point made earlier, because it is the one clients most need to act on rather than merely understand. Filing does not hold the suit, and it does not hold anything the other side is entitled to do under an order already made.
What that means in practice, on the ground, in the weeks after you file: the trial court keeps its dates, your attendance there is still required, evidence can be recorded, and if you stop appearing because the matter is in the High Court you can lose below while winning above.
We have seen that happen. It is an entirely avoidable loss and it happens because filing feels like an event and the trial court feels, for a few weeks, like somebody else problem.
The reason the belief persists is understandable. In ordinary life, taking a dispute to a higher authority tends to suspend what is happening below while it is looked at, and litigants reason from that. The Code does not work that way here, and it says so expressly rather than leaving it to inference.
Treat the two proceedings as genuinely parallel. Keep instructing below, keep attending, and tell whoever appears for you in the trial court that a petition has been filed, because they will otherwise be answering questions about it without notice.
If the proceeding below genuinely has to be held while the petition is heard, that is asked for separately and it is not granted because the petition exists. It is a request supported by reasons, and the reasons have to be about consequence rather than about the strength of the petition.
The distinction matters in drafting. An application that argues the revision is strong is answering a question nobody asked at that stage. An application that shows what will have happened by the time the petition is heard, and that it cannot be undone afterwards, is addressing the actual issue.
Where nothing irreversible is about to occur, the honest advice is not to ask. A refused application is not neutral; it sits on the file and it costs credibility on the next one.
Broadly three things, and they are worth preparing for rather than discovering at the hearing. Whether something is about to happen that cannot be reversed. Whether the applicant moved promptly or sat on the position for weeks. And what the cost of holding the proceeding falls on the other side.
The second of those is where delay compounds. An application made a fortnight after the order is a different document from the same application made three months later, and no amount of drafting repairs the gap.
The third is the one applicants forget. A suit held is a suit in which the other party is also waiting, sometimes out of possession or out of money. Acknowledging that and offering terms is more persuasive than ignoring it.
The sentence that does the most work in these applications. Not that the order is wrong, but that by the time this petition is decided the position will have changed in a way nobody can put back. If you cannot write that sentence truthfully, the application is probably not worth making.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Where the order you are complaining about has produced something enforceable, the enforcement machinery runs on its own track and is not interrupted by the petition. That machinery, what it can reach and how it is resisted, is set out on our execution petition page.
The practical point for a person in that position is one of sequencing. If something is being attached or taken this month, that is the emergency and it is dealt with where it is happening. The revision is the slower, separate exercise, and treating it as the answer to an immediate enforcement step is a mistake with physical consequences.
Clients find this ordering counter-intuitive because the revision feels like the real fight. The real fight is whichever one is removing your property this fortnight.
There is one planning point worth making early. If enforcement is a realistic prospect, decide in advance what you would offer to hold it, and have the material ready: what can be deposited, what can be secured, what asset is free. Those questions take days to answer honestly and they are always asked at short notice.
Arriving at that moment with an offer is a different position from arriving with an objection. The offer is what makes the request grantable.
There is a habit, common and understandable, of attaching every available application to a filing on the theory that asking costs nothing. It costs something.
Each application is read, and a petition arriving with four of them, three of which are unsupported, tells the reader something about the care taken with the fourth. Judges form impressions of files quickly and those impressions are hard to reverse at a second hearing.
The discipline is to ask for what you need and leave out what you would merely like. It reads as confidence, and it is the cheapest advantage available in a document.
The same discipline applies to the length of what is asked. An application that runs to fifteen paragraphs where four would do is read as an application that is not sure which of its points is good. Decide which one is good, lead with it, and let the rest go.
Where several things genuinely do need asking for, say so plainly and separate them, rather than folding three requests into a single prayer that a court cannot grant in part. An unanswerable prayer gets refused as a whole.
A related confusion, and it surfaces most often in matters that have been running for years. A litigant who obtains an interim order starts to treat it as the outcome, and conducts the rest of the matter as though the substantive question has been settled.
It has not. An interim arrangement is a holding position, it can be varied as facts change, and it carries no promise about what the final decision will be. Matters are regularly lost by a party who was comfortable for three years under an interim order and did nothing to advance the case.
If you obtain a hold on the proceeding, use the time for the petition rather than resting on it. The hold is scaffolding, not the building.
There is a particular version of this that catches careful people. A party obtains an interim arrangement, complies with it scrupulously for years, and treats that compliance as building a case. It is not building anything. Conduct under an interim order is rarely the issue at trial, and the years spent being impeccable can coincide with evidence going stale and witnesses becoming untraceable.
If you have reason to think the other side is about to approach a court and being informed only once it has happened would leave you with nothing useful to do, a caveat lodged in the court concerned entitles you to notice before an order is made in your absence.
It is small, cheap and early, and the people who regret not having lodged one outnumber the people who regret the fee by a wide margin. The work is caveat petition preparation, and in testamentary matters the equivalent step is a will contest or caveat, which is its own exercise.
The limitation of it should be stated too, because it is oversold. A caveat gets you notice. It does not prevent the application, it does not improve your answer to it, and it is not a substitute for having an answer ready.
Not required in every situation, and worth thinking about in more situations than people do. Where the complaint is about an order that the other side might be willing to have modified by consent, a letter before a filing occasionally resolves what a petition would not.
This is particularly true of interim directions that are wider than either party actually needs, where the drafting was done quickly and nobody intended the consequence you are now facing. A short, factual legal notice setting out the specific difficulty and the specific modification sought is cheap and sometimes sufficient.
Where relations have broken down entirely, skip it. The point is not to be conciliatory on principle; it is to notice the occasions where the shorter route exists.
There is also a record point in favour of it. A letter that sets out the difficulty precisely and is ignored becomes part of the picture later, and it costs almost nothing to create. A party who can show they asked for a sensible modification and were refused is in a better position than one who went straight upward.
Keep it narrow if you send one. One difficulty, one modification sought, no argument about the merits of the suit, and a short time to reply. A long letter rehearsing the whole dispute invites a long reply and settles nothing.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
If this page is reduced to a single page of instructions, it is this one, and it is all for the first day.
One. Get the order, in full, the same day. Not the operative line as reported to you by somebody who was in court; the document.
Two. File the written application for a certified copy and keep the dated acknowledgement.
Three. Find out which High Court governs the court that passed it, and what the period is there.
Four. Ask whether an appeal lies, because if one does, sub-section (2) closes this route and a different clock is already running.
Five. Run the counterfactual. Had it gone your way, would the suit have ended.
Six. Ask whether the court below can be asked to clarify or modify, which is frequently the better remedy and is never barred by any of this.
Five of those six cost nothing and can be done by a clerk. The sixth is a conversation with counsel. None of them require a decision about whether to fight, which is the decision people spend the first fortnight on.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
It is worth repeating in its own section because it is the thing readers most reliably skip. Several States have amended section 115 for their own territory, and in some the structure of the remedy differs materially from the general position described on this page.
What this page gives is the framework that Parliament enacted and the Supreme Court has interpreted: the proviso, the bar where an appeal lies, the position on stay, the Explanation, and what 2015 did to the constitutional detour. Those are national.
What it does not give is your procedure. Where the petition goes, on what form, within what time and on what fee are local questions, and they are answered locally.
This is also why we are cautious about the word general whenever it appears on this page. A general position is a useful scaffold for understanding the remedy and a poor basis for filing anything. The two uses get conflated constantly, including by material written in good faith.
When you read anything on this subject, including this page, ask what it is doing: explaining a structure, or telling you what to file. Only the second needs to be local, and only the second can be wrong for you specifically.
The general position is that revision under this section runs to the High Court. In some States, and in some classes of matter, the picture is arranged differently, with a revisional function placed at the district level.
A litigant who assumes the High Court and files there can find the petition returned on that ground alone, with the period continuing to run throughout. It is a wholly avoidable loss and it comes from assuming the structure is uniform.
The question to ask, and it is a question with a short answer at any filing counter, is where a revision from an order of this court, in a matter of this kind, is presented.
The error is easy to make because of how the remedy is usually described. Almost every account of this section, including the statutory language itself, speaks of the High Court, so a litigant who has read carefully can still arrive at the wrong building.
Ask it as a question about your own matter, not about the law. Where is a revision from an order of this court, in a matter of this kind and this value, presented. A counter clerk answers that in seconds, and the answer is worth more than a week of reading.
Three sources, in order of reliability. The rules of the High Court concerned, which govern the form, the presentation and much of the procedure. The State legislation amending the Code for that territory, if there is any. And the filing counter of the court itself, which is unglamorous and is right about practice more often than secondary material is.
What we would avoid relying on is a general article, a template, or a form downloaded from a site that does not say which State it is for. Forms in this area look similar across jurisdictions and differ in the parts that get a filing rejected.
One thing we refuse to do from this desk. Your period, your fee and your form do not get stated without first being checked against your own High Court. If an answer arrives from us without a source attached, ask for the source.
Gathering the threads, because it is the ordering that saves time rather than any single fact. The forum question comes before the merits question, always. Which court, under which provision, within what time.
Those three answers can usually be obtained in a day and they determine whether anything else is worth doing. Clients routinely spend the first three weeks on the merits, which is the most interesting part and the part that matters least if the route is closed.
The same ordering applies when instructing counsel. Twenty minutes spent settling forum and period beats an hour on the soundness of the order, because that discussion leads nowhere until the first one has taken place.
There is one more reason for the ordering, and it is about cost rather than time. Advice on the merits is the expensive kind, and it is wasted entirely if the route is closed. Advice on forum and period is cheap, quick and often obtainable without a consultation at all.
Spend the cheap money first. It is the only sequence in which the expensive money is never wasted.
If your suit is one that falls within the commercial courts structure, do not assume the ordinary position applies to it. That framework was built with speed as its purpose, and it restricts interlocutory challenges more tightly than the general civil structure does.
The specific position depends on the value, the subject matter and the court, and it is one of the first things to establish rather than one of the last. A challenge that would be entertained in an ordinary suit may be unavailable in a commercial one.
This is flagged rather than explained here because it deserves its own treatment, and because a partial account of it would do more harm than silence.
What can be said safely is the warning itself. If anybody has described your suit as a commercial dispute, or if it was filed before a Commercial Court or a Commercial Division, treat every general statement on this page as something to be checked rather than applied.
The question to put is short: does the commercial framework restrict what can be challenged at this stage in my matter, and if so, what is left. Ask it before preparing anything.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Section 115 speaks of courts subordinate to the High Court. An order of a tribunal is generally not reached by it, and tribunals almost always carry their own appellate or revisional structure inside their own statute.
Tax is the clearest illustration and the one we see most. An order in an income tax matter or in a goods and services tax matter travels its own statutory ladder, and the work for those is income tax appeal and GST appeal filing respectively, with their own periods.
Filing in the wrong structure is not a neutral error, because the time in the right one does not pause while the mistake is identified. Settle which statute governs the body that made your order before anything else.
The confusion is natural because many tribunals look and sound like courts, sit in similar buildings and use similar language. The test is not what the body resembles but what statute created it and what that statute provides for challenging its orders.
Find the statute first. Every question about period, forum and form is answered inside it, and almost none of them are answered by the Code.
Said at the start and repeated here because the enquiries keep arriving. If what you are complaining about happened in a criminal proceeding, this section has nothing to do with it. The criminal revisional structure sits in its own statute, with its own hierarchy, its own test and its own limits, and it is dealt with as criminal revision.
Appeals from conviction or acquittal are different again and are criminal appeal work. An application to be discharged before a trial begins is neither, and is discharge application work.
The reason for being pedantic about this is that the vocabulary overlaps almost completely while the law does not. Two people using the word revision can be describing remedies with nothing in common beyond the name.
The practical consequence is that advice does not transfer between the two. A friend or relative who went through a criminal revision and found it straightforward is describing a different remedy, and their experience of periods, forums and what the court would look at tells you nothing useful about yours.
A line we will not cross. We do not treat a criminal matter as a civil one or the reverse because the client prefers the answer. Where the enquiry is on the wrong side, we say so and send it to the right page rather than taking the instruction.
The last of the distinctions, and the one most often got wrong because the words sound alike. A review stays put. It asks the very judge who passed the order to look again at something visible on the surface of the record, and it raises no question about anybody authority.
When each of them fits, and how to tell them apart quickly, is worked out at length under review petition. What is worth knowing before you get there is that the two have separate periods which run at the same time, so a litigant who spends six weeks deciding between them may find both have narrowed.
Where the complaint is really about how the case was pleaded rather than how it was decided, neither is the answer. That is a problem with the written statement or the plaint, and it has to be addressed in the suit while the suit is alive. Checking documents against what was actually filed is document verification, and on an old file it is frequently where the real answer turns up.
A revision petition is a short document doing a narrow job, and the commonest fault in the ones we are asked to look at is that they are long. A petition that recites the whole history of the suit invites the reading that it is an appeal wearing different clothes, and that reading is fatal to it.
What we prepare is the memorandum in the form the High Court of the State accepts, the schedule of dates, the index, the list of documents relied on, and the affidavit that has to be sworn with it. The grounds themselves are set out under distinct heads and numbered, each one tied to the part of the record that supports it.
The words that matter most in the document are not ours. Where a ground says the court below assumed a power it did not have, the sentence that carries it is the sentence your advocate settles, because the moment the document asserts a legal conclusion it has stopped being a compilation and become a submission.
A test we apply before sending a draft back to you. Read any ground aloud and ask what a judge would have to turn to in the paper book to check it. If the answer is a page and a line, the ground is drafted. If the answer is the whole file, it is an argument, and it belongs to counsel.
On almost every matter of this kind the first useful thing we produce is not the petition. It is a single page with four dates on it: the day the order was pronounced, the day a certified copy was applied for, the day it was ready, and the day the period expires on the State position that applies to you.
That page is sent before any drafting begins, because it decides whether drafting is worth beginning. Three times out of ten it tells the client something nobody had said to them: that the period is shorter than they assumed, or that a copy was never applied for and the exclusion they are counting on does not exist.
It is also the page a client should keep even if they instruct us no further. Handed to any advocate, it saves the first consultation entirely, and it is ours to give rather than to charge for.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Four things, and the work does not start properly without them. A legible copy of the order complained of, with every page. The receipt or acknowledgement for the certified copy application, whatever form your district issues. The numbering of the suit or proceeding below, as it appears on the order itself rather than as remembered. And a short narration, phrased however comes naturally to you, covering what was sought from the court and what the court directed instead.
The last of those is the one clients spend the least time on and the one that does the most work. We are not asking for your view of why the order is wrong. We are asking what was prayed for and what was passed, because the gap between those two things is where a revisable error shows itself if there is one.
Where the papers are in a language other than the one the High Court takes, that is a separate piece of work and we say so before starting it rather than after. It is handled as legal translation, priced on its own, and the timeline for it is additional to ours.
Two things we do not need and will not ask for. The whole trial record, which the High Court calls for itself if it chooses to. And your assessment of the judge, which has no place in a petition and will not improve one.
It stops at the point where somebody has to persuade a court. We assemble, we verify, we format to the registry requirement, we keep the file in order and we tell you what is due and when. Appearance is not ours, argument is not ours, and no view on whether the order is sound comes from us, and we do not tell you that a revision is likely to succeed.
That boundary is not modesty and it is not a disclaimer bolted on at the end. It is what the law permits a documentation service to do, and a firm that blurs it is doing you harm on the only occasion when the distinction matters.
Court work is for your advocate, whose fee is engaged and paid by you directly; we do not quote, collect or share it
There is a particular temptation on a subject like this one, and we want to name it rather than pretend it does not exist. A page that has set out the proviso, the bar in sub-section (2) and the position after 2015 can sound, by the end, as though it is in a position to tell you which side of each line your order falls on. It is not.
Everything above is the shape of the law. Whether deciding your application the other way would have finished your suit is a question about your suit, read against your pleadings, by somebody who has read them. That is an opinion, it carries liability, and it is given by an advocate who takes responsibility for it.
What this page can honestly do is make that conversation shorter and better. A client who walks in knowing that the proviso exists, and asking the right question about their own order, gets more out of twenty minutes of counsel than a client who walks in asking whether anything can be done.
Said plainly. If you take one thing from this page into a consultation, take the question rather than the answer: had this been decided my way, would the suit have ended there? Ask it. The reply tells you what remedy you actually have.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Ours is ₹5,500, and the working time we hold ourselves to is 3 – 7 days from the day the last of the four items above reaches us. That is the drafting, the index and schedule, the affidavit, the formatting to the registry requirement and the file we hand over.
Separate from that, and not ours, are the court fee on the petition, the charge the district office makes for the certified copy, the process fee where notice has to go out, and your advocate’s engagement. Each of those is paid to whoever levies it, and we show it at cost on the statement rather than folding it into a single figure.
We do not print the court fee here. It is fixed by State legislation and by the court fees schedule the State has in force, and it is not the same in Madhya Pradesh as it is in Karnataka. A single number on this page would be confidently wrong for most of the people reading it, and a wrong number on a court fee is not a small error. Ask the filing counter, or ask us on the day and we will find out for your court rather than guess.
Set out because the enquiries that arrive on this subject are, more often than not, about one of these.
One. A finding of fact you disagree with. That is the appellate court’s territory, not this one, and dressing it as irregularity does not move it.
Two. An order your own side consented to. Consent closes the door on nearly every route out, and the route it leaves is not this one.
Three. A delay in the suit. Nothing here makes the court below go faster, and the petition itself does not stop the suit while it is pending.
Four. A case that was conducted badly on your behalf. That is a real grievance with a real address, and the address is not the revisional court.
Five. An order that an appeal lies from. Sub-section (2) puts it out of reach here, and the time spent discovering that is time taken off the appeal period.
It will not give you a limitation period in days, because the period is not uniform across the country and a figure here would cost somebody their petition. It will not give you a court fee. It will not give you a form number, because the form is the one the High Court of your State prescribes and several of them differ.
It will not tell you that your order is revisable, and it will not tell you that it is not. It will not give you grounds to copy, because grounds that fit somebody else’s order are the fastest way to have your own dismissed at the first hearing.
What it gives instead is the structure, the two changes that most published material on this subject still has wrong, and the questions to put to counsel in the right order. That is a smaller promise and a more useful one.
Short is better. The date the order was pronounced, the court and the case number as printed on it, one line on what was asked for and what was ordered, and whether a certified copy has been applied for. Four facts.
We reply with the date sheet and with a plain statement of whether this is work we can do for you or work that has to begin with an advocate. On a fair number of enquiries the honest reply is the second one, and we would rather send that reply on day one than take an instruction and send it on day nine.
Send it even if the facts are untidy or some of the dates are missing. A note saying the order is from around March and nobody applied for a copy is far more useful than silence while somebody hunts for the exact date, because the shape of the problem is already visible from it.
What we will never ask you to do first. Decide whether to fight. That decision needs the dates and the forum, and both of those are ours to establish before you are asked for anything.
Place Order — no advance, pay after work
Send us the order and the date it was pronounced. You will get the date sheet back before anything is drafted and before anything is charged.
The provision this page is built on is section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read as it has stood since 1 July 2002, and the two things that changed it are an amending Act and a judgment. Sub-section (1) lets the High Court call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate court where no appeal lies, and pass such order as it thinks fit, where that court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, or to have declined a jurisdiction that was, or to have acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Explanation provides that the expression covering a case which has been decided includes an order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding.
On what the 1999 amendment did, the proviso to sub-section (1) was substituted by section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 46 of 1999), and sub-section (3) was inserted by the same Act, both brought into force on 1 July 2002. The proviso bars the High Court from varying or reversing an order made in the course of a suit or other proceeding unless, had the order been made in favour of the party applying, it would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. Sub-section (2) bars the High Court from varying or reversing a decree or order against which an appeal lies, whether to the High Court or to a court subordinate to it. Sub-section (3) provides that a revision does not operate to stay the suit or other proceeding before the court except where it is stayed by the High Court.
On the constitutional route and what became of it, in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, decided 7 August 2003 and reported at AIR 2003 SC 3044 and (2003) 6 SCC 675, a two-Judge Bench held that a writ of certiorari under Article 226 was available against the judicial orders of a civil court, and observed that the distinction between Article 226 and Article 227 had in practice been largely obliterated. That view did not survive. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, decided 26 February 2015 by a Bench of three Judges (H. L. Dattu CJI, A. K. Sikri and Adarsh Kumar Goel JJ, the judgment delivered by Goel J) and reported at AIR 2015 SC 3269, the Court answered a reference and held that judicial orders of a civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, that Articles 226 and 227 are distinct jurisdictions, and that the contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled. The Court recorded that supervision of subordinate courts is exercised through appellate or revisional powers or the power under Article 227, and that although section 115 was curtailed in 1999 the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 remains unaffected.
On what this page deliberately does not state, the limitation period, the court fee and the prescribed form are governed by State legislation, by the court fees schedule in force in the State, and by the rules of the High Court concerned, and they are not uniform. Several States have amended section 115 for their own territory or have provided a different forum for revision, and a national figure or a single form number would be wrong in a large part of the country. Those are checked against the position of your own High Court rather than printed here.
Court work is for your advocate, whose fee is engaged and paid by you directly; we do not quote, collect or share it
Two doors, both free. Clients search a factual directory of enrolled advocates. Advocates apply to be listed on it — no fee, no commission, nothing paid in either direction.
Search Bar Council enrolled advocates by what your matter is about, by court, or by city. Searching and sending a request are both free.
Enrolled advocates anywhere in India can apply to be listed. Your entry is published only after we verify your enrolment number with your State Bar Council.
Would rather not pick anybody? Tell us the matter instead — one form goes to every advocate at once, and the first to take it up calls you.
This directory carries no ratings, no reviews, no rankings and no fees — only the factual particulars the Bar Council of India permits, published at each advocate's own request. Browse the network · Terms for Advocates