In short. If a Delhi civil court has passed an interim order in your suit that is plainly without jurisdiction or perverse, such as refusing an amendment, closing your evidence or wrongly rejecting your objection, you may be able to challenge it in the Delhi High Court. The tools are a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution or a revision under Section 115 CPC. These are not appeals: the High Court corrects serious errors, not every mistake. Many petitions are decided within months. Act quickly, ideally within 90 days, and first check whether an appeal lies.
Is this your situation?
- The trial court has refused your application to amend the plaint or written statement, and the suit is moving to evidence.
- Your right to file a written statement or lead evidence has been closed despite a genuine reason for delay.
- The court dismissed your application to reject the plaint even though the suit is clearly barred.
- An application to implead a necessary party, appoint a local commissioner or send a document to an expert was wrongly decided.
- An appellate court has decided your appeal against an injunction order and you think it went badly wrong.
- An executing court has passed an order in execution that you believe it had no power to pass.
- The other side has filed a petition in the High Court against an order you won, and the trial has stalled.
What Article 227 and civil revision are for
Every civil suit in Delhi's district courts, from Tis Hazari to Saket, Dwarka, Rohini, Karkardooma and Patiala House, produces a stream of orders before the final decree: on amendments, impleadment, evidence, commissions, adjournments and objections. Most cannot be appealed. If each could be challenged at length, no suit would ever finish. The law balances this by giving the High Court two narrow tools to correct serious errors in those orders.
Article 227 of the Constitution gives every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in its territory. It exists to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the High Court a revisional power over cases decided by subordinate courts where no appeal lies, on three narrow grounds about jurisdiction. In Delhi, revisions under Section 115 and Article 227 petitions in civil suits are heard by the Delhi High Court.
Neither is an appeal. The High Court does not re-weigh evidence, substitute its view for a plausible view of the trial judge, or correct every legal error. It intervenes where the order is without jurisdiction, patently perverse, passed in flagrant disregard of the law, or would cause serious injustice if left alone. Understanding that limit is the first step to deciding whether a petition is worth filing at all.
Appeal, revision or Article 227: choosing the right remedy
The order of questions matters. First, is the order a decree, or a decision treated as a decree, such as rejection of a plaint? Then the remedy is a first appeal under Section 96 CPC, explained on our page on civil first and second appeals. Second, is it an order made appealable by Section 104 and Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, such as an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction, or refusing to set aside an ex parte decree? Then you appeal to the appellate court and do not come to the High Court directly. The Supreme Court made this point in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society (2019): where an appeal lies under Order 43, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a petition under Article 227.
Third, if no appeal lies, would the order, had it gone in your favour, have finally disposed of the suit? If so, a revision under Section 115 is available. A classic example is an order dismissing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 to reject the plaint: had the application been allowed, the suit would have ended. Fourth, for all other interlocutory orders (amendment, impleadment, closing of evidence, commissions, recall of witnesses), the remedy, if any, is a petition under Article 227.
When Advocate B.K. Singh is shown a trial court order, he first writes down which provision the trial court was acting under and whether that provision appears in Order 43. That simple check prevents the commonest mistake in this area, which is filing in the High Court when an appeal lay elsewhere.
Common trial court orders and where they are challenged
- Amendment of pleadings allowed or refused (Order 6 Rule 17). No appeal; challenged under Article 227 if the order is perverse or ignores settled principles.
- Application to reject the plaint dismissed (Order 7 Rule 11). Revision under Section 115, since the order, if made the other way, would have ended the suit. If the plaint is rejected, the remedy is a first appeal.
- Temporary injunction granted or refused (Order 39 Rules 1 and 2). Appeal under Order 43 to the appellate court; Article 227 only against the appellate court's order.
- Right to file a written statement or lead evidence closed. No appeal; Article 227.
- Impleadment or deletion of parties (Order 1 Rule 10). No appeal; Article 227.
- Local commissioner, expert opinion, additional evidence, recall of witnesses. No appeal; Article 227, and only where the order goes to the root of a fair trial.
- Ex parte decree not set aside (Order 9 Rule 13) or plaint returned (Order 7 Rule 10). Appeal under Order 43.
- Orders in execution. Some are appealable under Order 43; questions decided under Section 47 CPC and other orders are usually taken up by revision or Article 227.
The law that applies
Article 227, Constitution of India
Power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within the High Court's territory. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010), the Supreme Court said it must be exercised sparingly, to keep subordinate courts within their jurisdiction and not to correct mere errors. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015), a three-judge bench held that judicial orders of civil courts are challenged under Article 227, not by a writ under Article 226.
Section 115, CPC
The High Court may revise a case decided by a subordinate court in which no appeal lies, if that court exercised a jurisdiction it did not have, failed to exercise one it had, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The proviso added in 1999 bars revision of an interlocutory order unless the order, if made in favour of the revisionist, would have finally disposed of the suit. A revision does not stay the suit unless the High Court orders a stay.
Section 104 and Order 43, CPC
List the orders against which an appeal lies, including orders on temporary injunctions, return of plaints, refusal to set aside ex parte decrees and appointment of receivers. Where an appeal lies, revision is barred and Article 227 is generally not the right route.
Article 131, Limitation Act 1963
Ninety days from the date of the order for a revision under Section 115. No fixed period applies to Article 227, but unexplained delay is a ground for dismissal, and courts often treat 90 days as a sensible guide.
Section 8, Commercial Courts Act 2015
No civil revision application or petition lies against an interlocutory order of a commercial court; such orders are to be challenged in an appeal against the decree. The constitutional power under Article 227 survives, but the Delhi High Court uses it with great restraint in commercial suits.
How the High Court judges an Article 227 petition
The question the judge asks is not whether the trial court was right, but whether it was so wrong that the High Court must step in. In Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022), the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order passed under Article 227 because the High Court had re-appreciated evidence as though hearing an appeal. If two views are possible and the trial judge took one of them, the petition will usually fail.
Petitions succeed where the order shows a clear jurisdictional error or ignores binding law. Examples include a court refusing an amendment on the ground of delay without considering that the trial had not begun, a court rejecting a written statement in an ordinary (non-commercial) suit filed shortly after 90 days despite good cause, when the Supreme Court has held that limit to be directory in such suits (Kailash v. Nanhku, 2005), or a court deciding a disputed question of title in an interim application meant only for procedure.
Courts also weigh the consequences. An error that can be cured in an appeal against the final decree is less likely to attract interference than one that will derail the trial, such as excluding a key document or witness, adding a party who will change the nature of the suit, or allowing an amendment that takes away a vested right of limitation from the other side.
Section 115 revision: narrower than most people think
Before 1999, revision petitions against interlocutory orders were a routine way to delay suits. The amendment cut this back sharply. Now, the High Court can revise an interlocutory order only if the order, had it been made in the revisionist's favour, would have ended the suit or proceeding. The Supreme Court explained the narrowed scope in Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers (2003).
Even where revision is available, the grounds are about jurisdiction: the court acted without jurisdiction, refused to exercise jurisdiction it had, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. An error of law that does not touch jurisdiction is not enough. This is why many revisions against orders refusing to reject a plaint succeed only where the bar to the suit is apparent from the plaint itself, for example a suit clearly barred by limitation on its own averments.
In the Delhi High Court, a revision under Section 115 is registered as a civil revision petition and an Article 227 petition in a civil matter is usually registered as a CM(M). Both are heard by single judges according to the roster. Criminal revisions are a separate remedy under the BNSS, covered on our page on criminal revision in the Delhi High Court.
Which High Court, and special cases
The petition goes to the High Court that supervises the trial court. For any civil court sitting in Delhi, that is the Delhi High Court. Many people in the National Capital Region assume that because they live in Delhi or their lawyer practises there, the Delhi High Court will hear them. It will not if the suit is pending in Gurugram or Faridabad (those courts are supervised by the Punjab and Haryana High Court) or in Noida or Ghaziabad (supervised by the Allahabad High Court).
Rent cases have their own routes. Under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, an eviction order on the ground of bona fide need is not appealable, and the tenant's remedy is a revision to the High Court; our page on eviction revision in the Delhi High Court explains it. Orders of tribunals in Delhi, such as the Delhi School Tribunal, can also be challenged under Article 227 where no further appeal lies.
Commercial courts are the third special case. Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act bars revision against interlocutory orders, and the Delhi High Court entertains Article 227 petitions against such orders only in exceptional situations, such as a patent lack of jurisdiction. If your suit is in a district commercial court, expect most interim orders to be tested only in the final appeal.
Step by step: filing a petition in the Delhi High Court
Get the order and the record
Obtain a certified copy of the impugned order, or download it from the district court's website and apply for exemption from filing a certified copy until it is available. Collect the pleadings, the application, the reply and the order sheets.
Choose the remedy
Check whether the order is a decree, appealable under Order 43, revisable under Section 115 or open only to Article 227. Filing the wrong remedy is a common reason for dismissal.
Draft the petition
Set out the short history of the suit, the impugned order, and the specific jurisdictional error or perversity. Attach the relevant record so the judge can see the error without reading the whole file.
Apply for a stay if needed
If the trial will move ahead and the petition may become pointless, file an application to stay the trial court proceedings or the operation of the order. Be specific about why a stay is needed.
File and cure defects
File through the e-filing system or at the counters, pay the court fee and cure any objections raised by the Registry. Urgent matters can be mentioned for early listing, as our guide on urgent mentioning in the Delhi High Court explains.
Admission hearing
At the first hearing the judge may dismiss the petition, issue notice to the other side, or in clear cases decide it at once. Many petitions are decided at this stage.
Reply and final hearing
If notice issues, the respondent files a reply, and the matter is argued. The High Court may set aside the order, modify it, send the matter back to the trial court, or dismiss the petition.
Back to the trial court
Place the High Court's order before the trial court on the next date. Unless the High Court has stayed the trial, the suit continues while the petition is pending.
Stay of trial court proceedings
Filing a petition does not stop the trial. Section 115(3) says so for revisions, and the same practice applies to Article 227 petitions. The trial court will continue to list the suit, record evidence and may even decide it, unless the High Court stays the proceedings or the impugned order. A party who stops attending the trial court because he has filed a petition can find his defence struck off.
The High Court grants stays carefully. It will usually stay only the part of the proceedings that would make the petition meaningless, for example the recording of evidence that depends on whether an amendment is allowed, while letting other stages continue. The judge may also direct the trial court not to pass a final judgment until the petition is decided.
For a time, a Supreme Court direction in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI (2018) meant that stays of trial automatically lapsed after six months. A Constitution Bench overruled that direction in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024). Stays now last as long as the High Court orders, but the court expects petitions in which it has stayed a trial to be argued promptly.
Typical time and cost
| Stage | Typical time | Court fee and costs (general) |
|---|---|---|
| Obtaining the order and record | A few days to three weeks | Copying fees in the district court |
| Drafting and filing | One to three weeks | Fixed court fee on the petition and on each application; check the current rate |
| First listing | Within days in urgent matters; otherwise one to four weeks | No further court fee |
| Decided at admission stage | Often at the first or second hearing | Costs may be imposed if the petition is frivolous |
| After notice: reply and final hearing | A few months to a year or more, depending on the roster | Process fees for service on respondents |
| Special leave petition to the Supreme Court, if pursued | Filed within 90 days of the High Court order | Separate Supreme Court court fees and filing through an Advocate-on-Record |
Documents for the petition
The order and its background
- Certified or downloaded copy of the impugned order
- The application on which the order was passed, the reply and any rejoinder
- Order sheets of the trial court showing the history of the suit
- Earlier orders of the appellate court, if the order under challenge is an appellate order
The suit record
- Plaint and written statement, with the documents relevant to the issue
- Issues framed, if any, and the stage of evidence
- Any document or deposition the trial court relied on or refused to consider
For filing
- Vakalatnama and affidavits in support of the petition and applications
- Proof of the date you obtained the order, if delay needs explaining
- Identity documents, and a power of attorney if a relative or company officer is signing
If the other side has challenged an order you won
A respondent in an Article 227 petition has strong points available. The first is the remedy itself: if an appeal lay under Order 43, or if the order is a commercial court's interlocutory order, the petition is likely misconceived. The second is the scope of review: if the trial court took a possible view on the facts, the High Court should not interfere. The third is conduct: a petitioner who delayed, suppressed earlier orders or is using the petition to stall the trial can be confronted with that record.
If you expect a petition and want to be heard before any stay is granted, file a caveat in the High Court; our guide on filing a caveat in the Delhi High Court explains the process. Without a caveat, the High Court may pass an interim order at the first hearing on the petitioner's version alone.
Keep attending the trial court. Unless there is a stay, the suit goes on, and the trial court will not wait for a petition that has not stopped it. Ask the trial court to proceed and, if the other side keeps citing the pending petition to avoid steps, bring that to the High Court's notice and ask for early disposal.
Mistakes that lead to dismissal
- Filing where an appeal lies. An Article 227 petition against an injunction order of a trial court, instead of an appeal under Order 43, is usually dismissed with liberty to appeal, wasting weeks.
- Arguing facts. A petition that asks the High Court to re-read depositions and reach a different conclusion is asking it to act as an appellate court, which it will not do.
- Delay. Waiting months while the trial moves on weakens the case for interference, and the order may become a fait accompli.
- Incomplete record. If the judge cannot see the application, reply and relevant order sheets, the petition looks weaker than it is.
- Suppressing earlier orders. Not disclosing an earlier petition, appeal or undertaking can lead to dismissal with costs.
- Using the petition to delay. The High Court imposes costs where a petition is filed only to stall a suit, and the trial court may refuse further adjournments.
A made-up example: a written statement refused in a Saket court suit
Here's a made-up example. A retired schoolteacher in Malviya Nagar is sued in the Saket district court for possession of a ground floor portion. The suit is an ordinary civil suit, not a commercial one. She is served in March, falls ill and is hospitalised for six weeks, and her written statement is filed on the 104th day with an application explaining the delay and attaching discharge papers. The trial court rejects it, holding that no written statement can be taken on record after 90 days, and closes her right to file one.
No appeal lies against that order. Her lawyers file a petition under Article 227 in the Delhi High Court within three weeks, attaching the plaint, the application for condonation, the hospital records and the order. They point out that in non-commercial suits the 90-day period in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC has been held to be directory, and that the trial court did not consider the medical evidence at all.
At the first hearing, the High Court issues notice and directs that evidence not begin until the next date. A few weeks later, it sets aside the order, takes the written statement on record subject to costs payable to the plaintiff, and asks the trial court to proceed promptly. Had the suit been a commercial suit, where the 120-day limit is mandatory, the result would almost certainly have been different.
After the High Court decides
An order passed under Article 227 or in revision by a single judge is generally not open to a Letters Patent appeal to a Division Bench, though the position can differ where the petition was in substance one under Article 226. Our page on Letters Patent appeals explains when an intra-court appeal lies. The usual further remedy is a special leave petition to the Supreme Court, explained on our page on special leave petitions from Delhi, which is discretionary and rarely granted against interlocutory civil orders.
If the High Court's order contains an error apparent on the face of the record, a review petition before the same judge is possible within the limitation period; see our page on review of a Delhi High Court judgment. Most of the time, though, the right course after an Article 227 petition is to return to the trial court and finish the suit, keeping the point alive for an appeal against the final decree if it still matters.
How we approach a challenge to a trial court order
We start by reading the impugned order alongside the application, reply and order sheets, and we answer three questions before drafting anything: does an appeal lie, is the error one of jurisdiction or serious perversity, and does it need fixing now or can it wait for the appeal? Sometimes the honest advice is not to file, because a petition will cost time and money and may not succeed. Advocate B.K. Singh would rather say that at the first meeting than after a dismissal.
Fees are discussed at the first meeting and agreed in writing, stage by stage, and we tell you the likely court fee before filing. Meetings can be held at our Dwarka office in Sector 7 near Ramphal Chowk, at our Vaishali office in Ghaziabad, or online. Our guide on what an Article 227 petition is gives a shorter overview.
If a civil court has passed an order in your case that you believe is badly wrong, or the other side has challenged one you won, contact Advocate B.K. Singh for advice on your papers or for updates on the law.
Frequently asked questions
What is the time limit to file an Article 227 petition in Delhi High Court?
There is no fixed limitation period for Article 227, but delay without a good reason is a ground for dismissal. Courts often treat 90 days, the period for a civil revision, as a sensible guide, and it is safer to file well within it.
Can I challenge an injunction order of the trial court directly in the High Court?
Generally no. An order granting or refusing a temporary injunction is appealable under Order 43 CPC to the appellate court. Only the appellate court's order can then be challenged under Article 227.
What is the difference between Article 227 and Section 115 CPC?
Section 115 is a statutory revision limited to jurisdictional errors in cases where no appeal lies, and since 1999 it applies to interlocutory orders only if they would have ended the suit had they gone the other way. Article 227 is a constitutional power of superintendence that covers other interlocutory orders, used sparingly.
Will the trial court stop hearing my suit if I file a petition in the High Court?
No, not unless the High Court stays the proceedings or the order. You must keep attending the trial court, or you risk adverse orders there.
Can the High Court reconsider evidence in an Article 227 petition?
No. The High Court does not act as an appellate court and will not re-weigh evidence. It intervenes when the order is without jurisdiction, patently perverse or passed in disregard of settled law.
My suit is in a Gurugram court. Can I file a petition in Delhi High Court?
No. Courts in Gurugram and Faridabad are supervised by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and those in Noida and Ghaziabad by the Allahabad High Court. The petition must go to the High Court that supervises the trial court.
Can I file a revision against an interim order of a commercial court?
Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act bars revision against interlocutory orders of commercial courts. Article 227 remains available in principle, but the Delhi High Court uses it only in exceptional cases.
What happens if my Article 227 petition is dismissed?
You go back to the trial court and continue the suit. A Letters Patent appeal is generally not available, so the further remedy is a special leave petition to the Supreme Court, which is discretionary. The point may also be raised later in an appeal against the final decree.