V GANTHIMATHI Vs. COMMISSIONER PUDUKOTTAI MUNICIPALITY PUDUKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUDUKOTTAI Municipality owns a farm growing grass going by the name "Maruppini Pannai". The right to cut and remove the grass from the said farm for the period 1.4.1990 and 31.3.1991 had been auctioned, on 22.2.1990. The maximum bid in the was Rs.4,23,010. One Ganthimathi submitted a letter to the Municipal Council Rs.4,33,035 for the licence to be granted in her favour to cut and remove the grass the said period. As a consequence, the auction in favour of the highest bidder was confirmed. Pending consideration of the offer of the said Ganthimathi, the Municipality, appraisal of the relevant provisions, decided to reauction. Aggrieved by such decision, said Ganthimathi, as plaintiff, filed O.S.No.421 of 1990 on the file of the District Court, PUDUKOTTAI against the Commissioner, PUDUKOTTAI Municipality as defendant 4.4.1990 seeking the relief of declaration of her right to cut and remove the grass farm during the period from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from re-auctioning the said right. She also filed I.ANo.128 1991 on 18.1.1991 praying for the relief of interim injunction restraining the defendant its men from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property namely, grass farm.

(2.) LEARNED District Munsif posted the said I.A. to 23.1.1991 for filing counter, on which date, counter had been filed and it was posted, for enquiry, to 24.1.1991, on which date, it adjourned to 28.1.1991 besides making an order of interim injunction till then 28.1.1991, learned District Munsif was on casual leave and consequently, it was adjourned to 31.1.1991, on which date, both sides were not ready and consequently, it was further adjourned to 7.2.1991, of course, after extending the interim injunction till then 7.2.1991, learned District Munsif addressed a letter to the District Judge for the transfer the case to the file of some other court for certain obvious personal embarrassment, adjourning the case to 27.2.1991 awaiting necessary orders. In so doing, no order passed extending interim injunction. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with present action, as an aggrieved person, under Sec.115, C.P.C., as no order was passed extending the interim injunction.

(3.) THE term "case decided" is not confined to the decision of the case as a whole, but would also include part of a case, which decides a substantial question in controversy between parties. THE touchstone, therefore, would be to find out if the order under revision has determined some right or claim between the parties, which is legally enforceable. If it has, it would be "a case decided" and jurisdiction under Sec.115, C.P.C., may be invoked and not otherwise.