Section 115
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
115. Revision.—(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears—
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that, where a person makes an application under this subsection, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court.:
Provided further that such application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate Court which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof and the High Court shall dispose of such application within six months.
(2) The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subjectmatter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court.
(3) If any application under subsection (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them.
(4) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2) by the District Court.
PUNJAB
115. Revision.—(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears—
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that, where a person makes an application under this subsection, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court.:
Provided further that the subordinate court shall provide copies of the documents to a person within three days of the decision, and the High Court shall dispose of such application within six months.
(2) The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by sub-section (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject-matter where of does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court.
(3) If any application under sub-section (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them.
(4) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under sub-section (2) by the District Court.
(5) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order passed by the District Court under section 104.
SINDH
115. Revision.—(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears—
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that, where a person makes an application under this subsection, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court.:
Provided further that such application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate Court which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof and the High Court shall dispose of such application within six months.
(2) The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by sub-section (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject-matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court.
(3) If any application under sub-section (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them.
(4) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2) by the District Court.
KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
115. Revision.—Any party aggrieved by an order under section 104, passed by the Court of District Judge or Additional District Judge in an appeal against an interlocutory order passed by a Civil Judge or Senior Civil Judge, as the case may be, may, within thirty days of the said order, file a revision to the High Court on an obvious misapprehension of law or in respect of a defect in jurisdiction.
BALOCHISTAN
115. Revision.—(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears—
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that, where a person makes an application under this subsection, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court:
Provided further that the subordinate court shall provide copies of such decision and the documents mentioned above within three days on application of a party concerned, and the High Court shall dispose of such application within six months.
(2) The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subjectmatter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court.
(3) If any application under subsection (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them.
(4) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2) by the District Court.
————
— S. 115 — Revisional jurisdiction — Second revision petition — Scope — Revisional jurisdiction is conferred upon both the District Court and the High Court — Two fundamental principles regarding this jurisdiction are well founded — The first principle states that if an application has been filed under sub-section (1) of section 115, CPC, no further application of this nature may be made — The second principle indicates that the High Court will not entertain any proceedings in revision against a revisional order made by the District Court — The essence of these two principles is that a second revision under Section 115, CPC is not permissible. [PLR 2025 SC 3 = PLD 2025 SC 24 = 2024 SCP 384]
— S. 115 — Revisional jurisdiction — Scope — Remedies available against a revisional order passed by District Court, detailed. [PLR 2025 SC 3 = PLD 2025 SC 24 = 2024 SCP 384]
— S. 115 — Civil Revision — Scope — When a trial court and the first appellate court, which are responsible for considering both factual and legal aspects, have already taken a specific viewpoint regarding evidence, the learned High Court under the jurisdiction granted by section 115 of the CPC should generally refrain from offering an alternative interpretation of the evidence, unless the lower courts’ interpretation is clearly unreasonable or contradicts well-established legal principles. [2023 SCLR 67 = 2023 SCMR 2103 = 2023 SCP 318]
— S. 115 — Civil Revision — Scope — When a higher court is unsatisfied with the findings of the lower courts, the higher court must carefully examine and discuss the lower courts’ findings — Subsequently the higher court should provide reasons for disagreeing with the lower courts and replacing their findings with its own. [2023 SCLR 67 = 2023 SCMR 2103 = 2023 SCP 318]
High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has ample power to correct the illegality and irregularity committed by the Courts below. [2024 CLS 5 = 2024 CLC 49]
Concurrent findings of courts below supporting all a preponderance of claims are not to be interfered in revisional jurisdiction, unless extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated by the applicants—Revisional Court does not sit in reappraisal of the evidence and is thus distinguishable from a Court of the appellate jurisdiction. [2024 CLS 38 = 2024 CLC 311]
Defendant was aggrieved of order passed by trial court setting aside ex parte decree on the condition of submitting bank guarantee and surety bond — Defendant challenged the order of trial court under Article 199 of the Constitution but the office of High Court raised objection against maintainability of petition — Validity — Impugned order was not made appealable either under S. 104, CPC nor the order amounted to a case decided to be revisable — Provisions of S.115, CPC provide that where appeal was not maintainable, revision would lie against decision of the case — For revision to be maintainable, finality was to be attached to the order assailed and the same was missing — Neither appeal nor revision was maintainable against interlocutory order requiring defendant to deposit bank guarantee and surety bond for suspension of ex parte decree — Constitutional petition could be filed due to non-availability of equally efficacious alternate remedy and objection raised to avail appropriate remedy was misconceived — Office objection was over-ruled. [2024 CLC 577]
High Court has a narrow and limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings arrived by the courts below while exercising power under S. 115, CPC — Interference in revisional jurisdiction can be made only in the cases in which order or judgment rendered by the subordinate Courts are found to be perverse or suffering from jurisdictional error or defect of mis-reading or non-reading of evidence and conclusion. [2024 CLD 369]
Concurrent findings of fact do not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or material irregularity, mis-reading and non-reading of evidence or error of jurisdiction. [2024 YLR 216]
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, reflects that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised when defects contemplated in the provision of S. 115 of the CPC are arising out of any case which has been decided—Examination of the S. 115, CPC reveals that High Court should not too readily interfere with interlocutory orders of the subordinate court, unless express or implied conditions of clauses ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ of S. 115(1) of the CPC are involved and only those interlocutory orders attract revisional jurisdiction that deal with some question in controversy before the Court or it has effect on rights of the parties to the lis—Baseless apprehensions or assumptions as to wrong exercise of jurisdiction or orders of adjournment or orders fixing the case for arguments, certainly do not fall within the scope of ‘case decided’ to maintain revision-petition under S. 115 of the CPC. [2024 MLD 55]
High Court has the powers to re-evaluate the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts in appropriate cases but cannot upset such crystalized findings if the same are based on relevant evidence or without any misreading or non-reading of evidence—If the facts have been justly tried by two courts and the same conclusion has been reached by both the courts concurrently then it would not be judicious to revisit it for drawing some other conclusion or interpretation of evidence in a second appeal under S. 100 or under revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C., because any such attempt would also be against the doctrine of finality. [2024 SCMR 916]
Revisional Court can even exercise its suo motu jurisdiction to ensure effective superintendence and visitorial powers to make sure the strict adherence to the safe administration of justice, and may correct any error unhindered by technicalities. [PLD 2024 SC 588]
Revisional Court cannot substitute findings of Courts below with its own merely for the reason that its findings are more plausible than that of the Courts below. [2023 YLR 838]
Revisional jurisdiction of High Court is limited and while exercising revisional jurisdiction High Court is not permitted to re-open or dilate upon merits of the case unless and until grave injustice or illegality is proved on record. [2023 CLC 1510]
Concurrent finings of facts cannot be disturbed when the same do not suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever. [2023 MLD 115]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.