HYATH BASHA Vs. TAJAN BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is sought to be filed by the tenant in H. R. C. O. P. No. 16 of 1980 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Thiruvannamalai, against the order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing M. P. No. 1982 filed by him for reopening the case for the purpose of examining the petitioner.s witness, viz., the previous landlord.s son, Sri Mohan Kumar for proving the regular payment of rent.

(2.) IT transpires from the impugned order that after examination of the witness on the side of the landlord, the case stood posted on 15th March, 1982 and thereafter on 13th April, 1982 on which date the tenant represented that he had no witness to be examined on his side. Then the case stood posted, at the request of both the parties, to 22nd April, 1982 for arguments, on which date the petitioner took out an application with an affidavit that he intended to examine a witness on his side. But, he has not given either the name of the witness to be examined on his side or the reasons for such intended examination. IT was under these circumstances the Court dismissed the petition holding that the present application had been taken by the petitioner for the purpose of dragging on the main proceedings. Hence this revision.

(3.) THE question that arises for my consideration is whether this revision is maintainable. Section 115 (2), Civil Proce- dure Code enacts that the High Court shall not under this provision vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. In the present proceedings, the Act provides for an appeal by any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller. Now, I shall refer to some of the decisions before adverting to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A question arose before the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Gokalchand1, whether an appeal would lie against an order passed in an interlocutory application. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that the words "every order" occurring in section 38 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, passed by the Rent Controller, though very wide, do not include interlocutory orders which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties and in a pending proceeding the Controller may pass many interlocutory orders such as orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of a document or the relevance of a question, and that all these interlocutory orders are steps taken, towards the final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceedings they regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or the liability of the parties. It has been further observed therein that the legislature could not have intended that the parties would be harassed with the endless expenses and delay by appeals from such procedural orders and that, it is open to any party to set forth the error, defect or irregularity, if any, in such an order as the ground of objection in his appeal from the final order in the main proceeding.