T M NATARAJAN Vs. SUBBARAYA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are filed against the orders passed inI.A.Nos.198 and 199 of 1987 in O.S.No.81 of 1983 on the file of Sub-Court. Tiruvannamalai. By invoking Section 151, and without even referring to C.P.C.I.A.No.198 of 1987 was filed to reopen the hearing of the suit, in which defendant 's side had started rendering evidence.I.A.No.199 of 1987 was filed under Order 16, Rule 10(2) without even referring to C.P.C. to issue summons to one Kuppusamy Gounder, Proprietor, V.K.S. Commission Mundy for production of bill books, account books, receipt books, etc. On trial Court dismissing both these petitions, these two revision petitions are preferred.

(2.) ON the revision petitions being taken up for hearing, Mr.R.S.Venkatachari, learned Counsel for defendants-respondents (ranking of parties as in trial Court) raised a preliminary objection that these two revision petitions are not maintainable, because they are not cases decided within the meaning of Section 115, C.P.C. To sustain this contention, he relied upon the following decisions.

(3.) BALAKRISHNA Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar, L.R. 44 I.A.No261 at 267 is a case in which a Court passed an order without jurisdiction, and it was held that it is a "case decided" and Section 115, C.P.C. would apply. It was further held as follows: "It will be observed that the section applies to jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it, or the illegal assumption of it. The section is not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved. And if the appellant' contention be correct, then if the Civil Court should absolutely and whimsically decline to exercise it' jurisdiction and refuse to make any orders as to the filling up of vacancies, no matter how many existed there would not, in a case such as the present, be any remedy available under this section and no appeal would lie."