SAI NARAYAN Vs. PADMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-3-80 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in M-C. No 40 of 1978, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to lead evidence in respect of the claim made by him in para 8 of his objections.

(2.) M.C. 40 of 1978 is a proceeding for dissolution of the Marriage by a decree of divorce. In that proceeding in respect of the matter pertaining to S. 27 of the Act, is going on. The Court below has refused to allow the petitioner to- adduce evidence, in respect of the claim made by him in para 8 of the objections on the ground that he has not pleaded in para 8 of the objections that several gifts claimed by him were made jointly to the petitioner and the respondent. No doubt, the jurisdiction of the matrimonial Court is confined to the gifts made at or about the time of the marriage and which may belong jointly to both the husband and wife. But, that is a matter to be established by adducing evidence. Therefore, the Court below is not correct in preventing the petitioner from adducing evidence in respect of the claim made by him in para-8 of the statement of objections.

(3.) Mr. V. K, Govindarajulu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the revision petition is not maintainable because it is not a case decided. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Murigappa v. Chanappa (1). That was a case in which certain questions were put to the witness and the same were disallowed and the order disallowing the questions were challenged in revision. Therefore, this Court held that by over-ruling an objection to a question put to witnesses, no case could be said to have been decided; consequently it was held in that case that the revision petition could not be maintained. The said decision has no application to the present case. In the present case, the party is completely prevented from adducing evidence on a certain plea raised by him. Therefore, it cannot be said such an order is not revisable under Sec. 115 CPC. Further, after the amendment of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the position is changed. It is open for this Court to interfere with the order of the lower Court if such an order is allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. In the instant case if the party is not allowed to adduce evidence in respect of the matter pleaded by him, there will be great injustice caused to the party. Therefore, it cannot be held that the revision is not maintainable.