Delhi High Court Rules Statutory Bar on Revising Interlocutory Orders Cannot Be Sidestepped via Inherent Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court has clarified that its inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent a statutory ban on revising interlocutory orders under the BNSS regime. This ruling arose from a case involving a party dissatisfied with a trial court’s refusal to reconsider an interim application under Section 311 of the Code, which governs the summoning of additional evidence. Facing this interlocutory order, the party did not pursue a conventional revision petition under the statute. Instead, they approached the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction, hoping to bypass the statutory restriction on appeals against such orders.

The bench carefully reviewed the nature of interlocutory orders and statutory design. It emphasized that interlocutory orders are procedural in nature and do not settle the rights or liabilities of the parties; they merely facilitate the course of proceedings. In contrast, intermediate orders hold decisive consequences, potentially terminating proceedings if reversed. Citing established legal tests, the Court reiterated that interlocutory orders—like orders refusing summoning under Section 311—cannot be treated as intermediate orders eligible for revision. The Court cited a leading test: if an order’s reversal would end proceedings, it is intermediate; otherwise, it remains interlocutory and non-reviewable in statutory revision.

Statutory Section 438(2) under the BNSS expressly bars revisional petitions against interlocutory orders. The petitioner’s attempt to use inherent jurisdiction to override this provision was firmly rejected. The Court held that inherent judicial powers can supplement statutory law but must yield where the legislature has clearly excluded revision. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass a specific statutory bar. Only in rare situations—such as gross abuse of process or manifest injustice—might inherent jurisdiction be available, and even then, only within statutory confines.

The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of procedural discipline and legislative intent. By rejecting the use of inherent jurisdiction to contest interlocutory orders, the judgment preserves procedural efficiency and upholds finality in pre-trial matters. It reinforces that judicial authority must comply with the precise boundaries set by law. While acknowledging the High Court’s overarching powers to ensure justice, the Court stressed that such powers cannot override explicit statutory limitations imposed to prevent fragmented litigation .

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that interlocutory orders under the BNSS cannot be revised—even via its inherent jurisdiction. This decision serves as a clear warning to litigants seeking to circumvent legislative safeguards: statutory mechanisms must be respected, and inherent jurisdiction cannot be a backdoor to bypass express legal provisions.