Sample draft Revision Petition

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION NO.333 OF 2020

MEMO OF THE PARTIES

Name &

Address……………………………………………………….Petitioner (Plaintiff/Defendant)

Versus

Name &

Address……………………………………………………….Respondent (Plaintiff/Defendant)

INDEX

S. No. Description of Documents Page No.

1. Court Fees

2. Memo of Parties

3. List of Dates and Events

4. Revision Memo under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908.

5. Impugned Order dated 15/07/2019

6. Vakalatnama

Place:
Date :

(Counsel for the Petitioner)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION NO.333 OF 2020

Name……………………………………………………………..Petitioner (Plaintiff/Defendant)

Versus

Name……………………………………………………………..Respondent (Plaintiff/Defendant)

REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE

CODE, 1908 CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED ON _____IN THE
CASE NO._____.

The Petitioner MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That, the instant Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 being aggrieved by the Order
dated _______ passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, ______________, New Delhi
in Civil Suit No. ________of 2019 seeking to set aside the same. The
certified copy of the impugned order is annexed hereto and marked
as Annexure A1.

2. The Petitioner seeks the intervention of the Hon’ble Court as the

subordinate court had refused to summon two important witnesses who were
determinant to the case. Without the court intervention, and thereby issuing
an Order of Summons, there is no way that they would appear and answer
on Oath. The non-appearance of the witness would lead to grave injury
caused to the Petitioner. Thus, this petition to direct the Subordinate Court to
issue summons to the witness and thereby exercise the jurisdiction the court
has.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The money suit was filed by the Petitioner on __________based on the
contract entered into by the Plaintiff and the Defendant for jointly bidding a
tender floated by the Public Sector Unit (PSU). It was agreed that the sale
proceeds would be distributed equally to the bidders.

4. The parties secured the tender in their favour for Rs.5,00,000 and the
amount was credited to the Defendants account. But, the value of the tender
would least amount to Rs. 10,00,000.

5. The Defendant after receiving the sale proceeds informed the Plaintiff that
he had accepted the tender for Rs. 5,00,000. When the Plaintiff enquired
the Defendant as to why such low amounts were secured, the Defendant
gave evasive response and never explained why such less amount was
received, when clearly the value of movies is much higher. As per the terms
and conditions of the contract half of the financial proceeds belong to the
Plaintiff.

6. That the trial court framed issues on 19/01/2019 and directed the
Petitioner to produce evidence, upon which the Petitioner promptly furnished
to the court below four witnesses making a request that the witness should
be summoned by that Court.

7. The Plaintiff listed 4 witnesses out of which there are 2 witnesses from the
PSU.

8. The Judge refused to entertain such a request and directed the Plaintiff to
secure the attendance of the 2 PSU witnesses on his own.

9. The Judge, after cross-examining the two other witnesses had passed an
order to close the witness of the Plaintiff (order dated 15/07/2019).

10. Two witness of the petitioner had appeared and their statements were
recorded. However, the learned Presiding Officer of the court below passed
an order that the remaining witnesses be produced by the petitioner-plaintiff
on his own without seeking the assistance of the court. This order was
passed despite a request by the petitioner that at least those witnesses
named in the list who are State employees should be summoned by the
court, as they are required to produce and prove some official records.

GROUNDS:

i. That on the date of hearing the learned trial court by the order
impugned in this revision closed the evidence of the petitioner-
plaintiff on the ground that the remaining witnesses were not
produced by him.
 ii. That the impugned order has caused great prejudice to the petitioner
and if the same is allowed to stand the petitioner’s suit is bound to
fail.
iii. The Judge has failed to exercise the powers granted to him under
Order XVI, Rule I of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
iv. That the trial court has unjustifiably denied assistance of the court to
the petitioner-plaintiff to secure the attendance of his witnesses.
The interests of justice demand that he is provided with all legal
assistance in this regard.
v. The purpose of summoning the two PSU witnesses has a great impact
on the case. Only on them giving testimony can the rights of the
parties be decided and the justice can be upheld and the real rights
of the parties be decided.
vi. That it is violative of the principles of natural justice and fair trial.
11. The Plaintiff submits that all court fees have been paid.

12. The Plaintiff submits that there is no appeal in the High Court or any
other Court subordinate to it.

PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances discussed above the petitioner prays that this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to

1. Quash and set aside the order under revision.

2. Direct the court below to provide assistance of the court for
summoning the plaintiff-witnesses.
And pass any such other orders as the court may deem fit and proper in the
light of the given circumstances and thus render justice.

Points to remember
 The power of the High Court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction is
discretionary. No absolute power lies to the parties of a suit to file a
Revision Petition as compared to an appeal.
 A Revision Petition can be filed only against orders which have
attained finality. In case of interim or interlocutory orders which are
for a temporary period of time such as an Order restricting the party
from alienating the disputed party for a period of 6 months, a RP
will not lie. Note that temporary injunction, permanent and
mandatory injunctions are appealable orders and thus a revision
petition would not lie.
 There is a clear distinction between appeal and a case under section
115. The High Court does not go into the facts and circumstances of
the case in a revision petition. It only looks into the aspect of where
the lower court had assumed jurisdiction where it had no jurisdiction
or where the lower court has jurisdiction and has failed to enforce
it.
 The court will not reweigh or review the evidence of the case in
hand. The High Court after analysing, if it finds that there had been
a jurisdictional error would pass directions for the lower court to
correct it. The High Court will not interfere in the case and pass
orders or decisions like in the case of appeal where the appellate
court can modify, alter, reverse or to remand a case.
 The High Court can exercise its revisionary powers Suo moto as
well.
 The High Court cannot pass an order to set aside the findings of
facts of the lower court.
 If a Revision Petition is filed, it would not operate as a stay
proceeding to the original suit unless the High Court has ordered a
stay proceeding. It means that pendency of a revision shall not
operate as a stay of suit or other proceedings.