KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PYLEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dissatisfied with the compensation paid on 27th April 1964 under S.10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with S.51 of Electricity Act, 1910 the respondent on 1st October 1969 made an application before the lower court to determine that dispute under S.16(3) of the first mentioned statute. The revision petitioner, the Kerala State Electricity Board, contended that the application is barred by limitation under Art.137 in the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 besides opposing the claim for enhancement. The lower court decided the question of limitation preliminarily on 3rd January 1973 against the Board, Thereafter, on 8th August 1973 the lower court held that the respondent is entitled to Rs. 8,590 more as compensation. The Board impugned both the findings in C.R.P. 109 of 1974. Without expressing any view on the merits on the question of limitation for the reason that the case has to be remanded on the other, this Court remitted back the case to the lower court. After remand the Board again raised both the points before the lower court. The lower court held that the Board is concluded by the order of 3rd January 1973 on the first question, and again awarded Rs. 8,590 as additional compensation. Hence this revision by the Board challenging both the findings, that is, on the question of limitation and as regards the quantum of compensation.

(2.) The contention that found favour with the lower court so far as the question of limitation is concerned is that the preliminary finding was not taken up in revision before the case was decided on 8th August 1973, and therefore that finding concludes the Board.

(3.) A party to a proceeding before a subordinate Court is not obliged to question every order passed therein before a superior court as and when the same is passed. He can, so far as very many orders are concerned, wait till the proceeding terminates and final decision is rendered therein, and when, on being aggrieved by the final decision, he challenges it before the superior court, also can canvass the correctness of any order passed by the Subordinate Court, if the same has affected the final decision. Such are orders which constitute only a step towards the final decision or the final order and do not have the force of a decree. This is so, whether an appeal lies from such orders or not, provided if it is an appealable order, no appeal had been preferred therefrom. An order of remand from which an appeal lies is an exception to this rule. See Maharajah Moheshur Singh v. Bengal Government ((1865) 7 Moo. Ind. App. 283) and Satyadhyan v. Smt. Deorajin Debi ( AIR 1960 SC 941 ). These principles find expression in S.105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so far as appellate jurisdiction of the superior court is concerned, and in my view, these wholesome general principles would with much more force govern revisional jurisdiction of the superior court in relation to non appealable final decisions of the subordinate courts.