Supreme Court of India

Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society v Swaraj Developers

(2003) 6 SCC 659; AIR 2003 SC 243420031 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Several High Courts dismissed revision applications under S.115 CPC as not maintainable after the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 came into force on 1 July 2002, because the impugned orders, even if made in the applicants' favour, would not have finally disposed of the suits or proceedings. The applicants argued that the amendment did not apply to revisions admitted earlier and that a right of revision was a vested right.
Issue
Whether the amended S.115 applied to revision applications pending when it came into force.
Held
The amendment applied. An appeal is a continuation of the suit and a vested right, but revision is part of the High Court's supervisory power and is not a vested right. The amendment relates to procedure; no one has a vested right in a course of procedure. Unlike S.97(3) of the 1976 Amendment Act, S.32(2)(i) of the 1999 Amendment Act did not save pending applications. The appeals were dismissed.
Principle
The 1999 amendment to S.115 applies to pending revision applications, as there is no vested right in a procedural remedy of revision.
Cite this

Facts

  • Several High Courts dismissed revision applications under S.115 CPC as not maintainable after the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 came into force on 1 July 2002, because the impugned orders, even if made in the applicants' favour, would not have finally disposed of the suits or proceedings. The applicants argued that the amendment did not apply to revisions admitted earlier and that a right of revision was a vested right.

Issue

  1. Whether the amended S.115 applied to revision applications pending when it came into force.

Held

  • The amendment applied. An appeal is a continuation of the suit and a vested right, but revision is part of the High Court's supervisory power and is not a vested right. The amendment relates to procedure; no one has a vested right in a course of procedure. Unlike S.97(3) of the 1976 Amendment Act, S.32(2)(i) of the 1999 Amendment Act did not save pending applications. The appeals were dismissed.

Ratio decidendi

Where a statute alters procedure, parties must proceed according to the altered mode unless the statute saves pending proceedings. Revision under S.115 is a supervisory jurisdiction, not a vested right like an appeal, so the restricted proviso applies to revisions pending on 1 July 2002.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Revision (S.115): The leading case on the 1999 and 2002 amendment and interlocutory orders.
  • Codification and amendments: Use in introductions to show the effect of the 1999 and 2002 amendments.
  • Correction (2026-10-21): An earlier version of this file said the case held that procedural law must be read liberally to advance substantive justice. The judgment on Indian Kanoon concerns the amended S.115 and does not decide that point.

Cite this

Citation

Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society v Swaraj Developers (2003) 6 SCC 659; AIR 2003 SC 2434

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/213017/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.