RADHAMMA Vs. S M CHANDRASHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Kavitha holding brief for Sri A. K. Subbaiah, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Sachindra Karanth, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE order challenged in this revision is dated 25-8-1993 directing steps to be taken for service of notice after transfer of the case to the Court of Additional Munsiff, Shimoga. Revision under section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act lies from the decree or order made in the case decided by the Court of Small Causes, for High Court's satisfying itself as to whether the said decree or order was passed according to law. Initial condition for revision being maintained or revisional power being exercised is that there must be some order passed by the Court and that order should either amount to a decree or should amount to an order deciding the case. "order" expression means 'judgment which does not amount to a decree that which has the effect of deciding certain rights between the parties either involved in the case or in relation to the suit pending'. The order must amount to a case decided. What is a case decided has been the subject-matter of consideration in very many cases including the case of Major S. S. Khanna v Brig. F. J. Dilton. Considering the Major S. S. Khanna's case, supra, in the case of Baldevdas Shivlal and Another v filmistan Distributors (India) Private Limited and Others, their Lordships of the Supreme Court very clearly define the expression "case decided" and it will be profitable to quote the observations made in that case,

(3.) IN the present case, the order impugned is only an order that notice be issued of the case being transferred or case having been received on transfer. I may quote the order contained in the order sheet dated 20-8-1993 which reads as under.-