Courtesy: Armaan Khanduja
Small Causes Court (S.C.C) revision is a legal remedy available to a party aggrieved of a decree or order passed by a Small Causes Court. It is a revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court over the Small Causes Courts. The High Court can review the proceedings of the Small Causes Court and correct any errors or irregularities. It can either confirm, modify, or set aside the decree or order of the Small Causes Court.
Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 empowers the High Court to examine any decree or order issued by a Court of Small Causes. The High Court may do so to satisfy itself that the decision was made in accordance with the law. Upon reviewing the case, the Hon’ble High Court has the discretion to pass such orders as it deems fit.
What are the grounds for filing S.C.C Revision?
The grounds for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, as established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mundri Lal v. Sushila Rani [(2007) 8 SCC 609], consist of:
- Perversion of Findings: A revision can be filed if the findings of the Small Causes Court are deemed perverse. This means that the conclusions reached by the lower court are irrational or not supported by the evidence presented.
- Lack of Material: If the court’s findings are based on no material, it indicates that the judgment lacks a factual basis. In such cases, the High Court can intervene to rectify the situation.
- Inadmissible Evidence: A revision can be warranted when the findings are derived from inadmissible evidence. This occurs when evidence that should not have been considered in the first place influences the outcome of the case.
- Non-consideration of Relevant Evidence: If the Small Causes Court fails to consider relevant evidence, leading to an unjust conclusion, this can also be a ground for filing a revision. The higher court may intervene to ensure that all pertinent information is evaluated.
What is the limitation period for filing SCC Revision?
The limitation period for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (as applicable in Uttar Pradesh) is 30 days. This applies whether the revision is filed in the District Court or the High Court. In cases where the revision is filed beyond 30 days, the revisionist can apply for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by demonstrating sufficient cause for the delay.
In the case of District Manager, Food Corporation of India vs. Yans Prasad Jain and another, 1983 (9) ALR 630, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court clarified the limitation period for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. The court held that an aggrieved party must file a revision before the High Court within 30 days of the order. If the revision is filed beyond this period, the party can apply for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court further stated:
“If it is filed beyond this period, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act will lie irrespective of the stage at which the fact of delay comes to light. If the delay is in a particular case, not condoned, application in revision will have to be dismissed even where the record has been summoned at the instance of such party.”
This ruling underscores that revisions must be filed within the stipulated 30-day period, with any delay requiring sufficient justification through a formal application for condonation.
You can read our article on Law relating to Delay Condonation: Remedies and Analysis to learn more about the Condonation of Delay and the factors which the Court considers for the same.
Will the High Court grant a stay of execution on the original order while the revision application is pending?
The High Court will typically grant a stay of execution on the original order while the revision application is pending. In the landmark case of Mool Chand Yadav and Another vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and Others, reported in (1982) 2 SCC 484, the Supreme Court held that once a revision or appeal is admitted, it is essential for the concerned court to issue a stay on the impugned order. The Court emphasized that after the admission of a revision, the revisional court must prioritize deciding on the stay application, and until that application is resolved, no execution proceedings should be initiated.
Additionally, the Allahabad High Court addressed this matter in Ravindra Kumar Batla @ Deenu vs. Anoop Kumar Gupta, where it granted a stay on execution until the stay application was disposed of. This decision reiterates that parties are not adversely affected by orders that may ultimately be overturned or modified upon review.
Conclusion
The revision of the Small Causes Court (S.C.C.) is an essential legal remedy that enables parties who are dissatisfied with the decisions of the Small Causes Courts to appeal to the High Court. The object of the Remedy is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice and that the decision was given according to law.
While preparing the grounds for revision, it must be noted that any illegality or infirmity in the judgment or order must be highlighted with clarity. The grounds for revision must focus on the material irregularities and bring forth the questions of law. However, it is pertinent to state that the jurisdiction of Revision under Section 25 of the Act is wider than that under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908. Therefore, some findings of fact in unique circumstances can also be interfered with by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.