Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court was seized of three writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging orders passed by the Court of Small Causes in suits under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The core dispute revolved around the maintainability of writ petitions in light of the alternative remedy of revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the writ petitions were not maintainable because a revision application was available. The petitioners, however, contended that such a revision did not lie against procedural orders passed under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), such as orders relating to amendment of pleadings or directing the sequence of evidence. The Single Judge hearing the matters noted a conflict of views among Single Judges of the High Court. While some judges, following the Division Bench decision in Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir v. Rambhujarat Kshampati, held that revisions were not maintainable against interlocutory orders, another Single Judge in Abeda Iqbal Patel v. Cormorant Investment Pvt. Ltd. took a contrary view. Consequently, the Single Judge referred two questions to the Larger Bench: the scope and ambit of revisional power under Section 34(4) and whether a revision lies against a procedural order passed under CPC in a rent suit. The petitioners’ counsel argued extensively that the word ‘order’ in Section 34(4) cannot be read to include every interlocutory order, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Shankarlal Aggarwala, Bant Singh Gill, and Central Bank of India, which had interpreted similar wide language in appeal provisions restrictively. They contended that merely procedural orders do not affect the rights or liabilities of parties and hence are not revisable. The respondents argued that the provision was wide enough to cover all orders. The Court analyzed the statutory scheme, the distinction between appeal and revision, and the binding precedents. It held that the revisional power under Section 34(4) is supervisory and discretionary, narrower than appeal, and is intended to correct errors that cause injustice by affecting substantive rights. The word ‘order’ must be restricted to those which decide or affect rights or liabilities of parties; purely procedural or interlocutory orders that do not have such effect are not revisable. The Court provided illustrative lists of orders that are revisable and those that are not, emphasizing that the test is whether the order finally determines a right or liability. The answers to the reference were thus: a revision under Section 34(4) is maintainable only against orders which affect the rights or liabilities of the parties; it is not maintainable against procedural orders passed under CPC that lack such impact. Consequently, the writ petitions were held to be maintainable as no effective alternative remedy existed for challenging such procedural orders.
Headnote
A) Interpretation of Statutes - Meaning of 'Order' in Revisional Provision - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 34(4) - The word 'order' in Section 34(4) does not encompass every interlocutory order; only those orders which affect rights or liabilities of parties are revisable. Held that the revisional power is narrower than appeal and does not extend to purely procedural or interlocutory orders that do not finally determine substantive rights (Paras 20-24, 63-68). B) Civil Procedure - Distinction Between Appeal and Revision - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 34(4) - Revision under Section 34(4) is discretionary supervisory jurisdiction aimed at correcting jurisdictional errors, material irregularity or illegality, whereas an appeal is a continuation of original proceeding enabling rehearing on merits. Held that the word 'order' in the revisional provision must be interpreted restrictively to exclude orders not affecting rights or liabilities (Paras 20-24, 75-83). C) Precedent - Reliance on Supreme Court Judgments - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 34(4) read with Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Companies Act, 1913 - The High Court followed Shankarlal Aggarwala v. Shankarlal Poddar, Bant Singh Gill v. Shanti Devi, and Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand, which held that wide language in conferring appeal or revision does not include interlocutory procedural orders. Held that these principles apply to Section 34(4) (Paras 25-62). D) Illustrative Orders - Categories of Revisable and Non-Revisable Orders - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 34(4) - The court provided lists: revisable orders include those deciding jurisdictional issues, granting or rejecting leave to defend, striking out defense, amendment of pleadings if affecting rights, etc.; non-revisable orders include those merely procedural like granting adjournment, issuing witness summons, routine discovery, unless they affect substantive rights. Held that the nature and effect on rights is decisive (Paras 84-89).
Issue of Consideration
What is the scope and ambit of the power of revision under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999? Whether a revision application under section 34(4) would be maintainable in respect of a procedural order passed under the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit arising out of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act?
Final Decision
The Larger Bench answered the reference by holding that (i) the scope and ambit of revision under Section 34(4) is supervisory and discretionary, narrower than appeal, and is confined to orders that affect rights or liabilities of parties; the word 'order' does not include every interlocutory or procedural order. (ii) A revision application under Section 34(4) is not maintainable in respect of a procedural order passed under the CPC in a suit arising out of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, unless such order affects the rights or liabilities of the parties. The Court provided illustrative examples of revisable and non-revisable orders.
Law Points
- revision under section 34(4) is maintainable only against orders affecting rights or liabilities of parties
- procedural orders not affecting substantive rights are not revisable
- the word 'order' does not include every interlocutory order
- reliance on Supreme Court precedents in Shankarlal Aggarwala
- Bant Singh Gill
- Central Bank of India
