PARVATAMMA Vs. ANJANAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Defendant/revision Petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 10.4.2000 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C., Chickballapur, in O.S. No. 283 of 1990.

(2.) IN the course of trial, it appears that the learned Counsel for the Defendant raised the objection as to the admissibility of the unregistered document namely palupatti i.e., some document alleged to be palupatti. The objection of the Defendant was that the palupatti was not registered and so it cannot be marked in evidence of the Plaintiff as it is inadmissible to prove title of any coparcener to any of the property. The Court below rejected the objection taking the view that even if the document may be taken to be an unregistered partition deed and it is not registered, but even an unregistered document may be used for collateral purposes. Whether that document itself is the partition -deed or not, that question has to be decided at the time of hearing of the suit and unless that question is decided, the question whether the document requires to be registered or not could not be decided. But, even if a document is unregistered and it is intended to be used for collateral purposes, the trial Court opined that even an inadmissible document can be used for collateral purposes and rejected the objection. From this order, the Defendant has come up in revision under Section 115.

(3.) THAT Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, along with its explanation has been referred to me. No doubt, explanation to Section 115 defines the term 'any case which has been decided' to include any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. No doubt, this explanation indicates that an order passed in course of proceeding of the suit or other proceeding or an order deciding the issue or any order made amounts to a case decided. But the expression 'order' used in Section 115 or in its explanation has not to be taken in ordinary sense or parlance. Because, the Legislature has itself defined the expression "order" vide Section 2 of the Code as under: Section 2(14). -Order means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree. Here it means, decision of some dispute as to right involved in the suit or relating to right in proceeding as to course of proceeding. In my opinion, the question of admissibility of a document cannot be said to have decided the right of the party finally. The order impugned only considers whether the document is admissible for the purpose of evidence and the trial Court opined that the document is admissible. This order can be said only to be an order in course of proceedings or an interlocutory order nor of the nature of an order amounting to case decided. Such a view had also been expressed in a Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Bibi Gurdevi, Rep. by Prithvi Raj Khosla Vs. Chaudhri Mohammad Bakhsh and Ors, AIR 30 1943 Lah 65. Bhinde, J., as he then was, observed as under: From the standpoint of language, pure and simple, there seems to be no good reason why one branch of a suit should be held to be a case' but not another and the word may include any interlocutory order. This does not, of course, mean that purely formal orders such as those relating to an adjournment or the summoning of a witness, etc., could be looked upon as cases'. But when a decision relates to some matter in controversy affecting the rights of the parties, I do not see why it should not be looked upon as a case'. Their Lordships observed that the word 'case' is wide enough to include a decision which relates to any matter involving the controversy affecting the rights of the parties. This view appears to be in consonance with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Baldevdas Shivlal's case. Dalip Singh, J., as he then was in Lahore High Court, has been pleased to observe at page 80 as under: It seems clear to me that if a Court decides merely to summon a witness, or rejects or admits a document as evidence in the case, or postpones or adjourns the case, such an order cannot possibly be held to be a case decided. If authority were needed for this proposition, I would rely on 4 IC 878.