(1.) PUDUKOTTAI Municipality owns a shandy within its limits. The right to collect shandy collection for the period from 1.7.1990 to 31.3.1991 has been auctioned Murugesan was the highest bidder for Rs.1,62,045. He made a deposit of Rs.40,512 auction was confirmed in his favour by the Municipality on 30.6.1990. He has to balance bid amount at Rs.20,255 per mensem on or before the 5th of every month, default to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum. If he commits any default in payment the bid amount his auction is liable to be cancelled. Due to rain and poor collection that he incurred a loss to the tune of Rs.10,000 per month. Therefore he did not pay amount. Apprehending that the licence to collect daily shandy collection granted to be cancelled by the Municipality, he, as plaintiff, filed O.S.No.67 of 1991 on the file District Munsif's Court, PUDUKOTTAI against the Commissioner, PUDUKOTTAI Municipality defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from manner cancelling or annulling the licence granted to him or from collecting the daily collection till 31.3.1991. He also filed I.A.No.126 of 1991 praying for the relief of temporary injunction till the disposal of the said suit.
(2.) LEARNED District Munsif heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and ordered notice interim injunction till 25.1.1991 on 18.1.1991. The plaintiff was also directed to comply O.39, Rule 3, C.P.C., and file an affidavit on 21.1.1991 failing which the said order will cancelled. On 25.1.1991, the defendant filed counter and the I.A. was posted to 31.1.1991 for enquiry besides ordering the status quo to be maintained till than. On 31.1.1991, was adjourned to 7.2.1991 by directing extension of the previous order till then, enquiry. However, on 7.2.1991, learned District Munsif addressed a letter to the Judge for the transfer of 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 no order was passed extending the order of interim injunction or the maintenance status quo till then. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the present action, aggrieved person, under Sec.115, C.P.C., as no order was passed extending either injunction or maintenance of the status quo.
(3.) THE term "case decided" is not confined to the decision of the case as a whole, but 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 determined some right or claim between the parties, which is legally enforceable. If it would be "a case decided " and jurisdiction under Sec.115, C.P.C., may be invoked and otherwise.