RAMESH CHANDRA SAHU Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the applicant. The present revision is directed as against the order dated 28-11-87 passed by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge Jhansi by virtue of which he rejected the application of the present applicant for leave to serve interrogators on the plaintiff-opposite party.

(2.) Preliminary objection has been raised in this case that this is not a "case decided" and the court should not interfere in the present proceeding as the applicant would have right to object finally at the time when final order is passed in the said suit. This point is covered by a decision of this Court reported in Maheshwari Oil Mill v. M/s. Girjanath Durga Saran, AIR 1980 All 265 wherein it has been held that "when the court exercises its judicial discretion in granting or refusing to grant leave to deliver interrogatories it cannot be said to be an adjudication of some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. "The order does not amount to case decided". In fact, in Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 and in Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 406 the principle has been clearly enunciated that unless there is case decided it could not be revisable on the facts of the present case appropriately. The impugned order is not such to which it could be said that it is a case decided and is in the nature of interlocutory order and is not revisable. In sub-clause (1) of S.25 of the Small Cause Courts Act the language is very clear which is quoted below : "For the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law." Therefore, the principle as mentioned and made applicable to S.115 would be applicable even to Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as the language is identical therein. The very purpose of the Act is that the proceedings should not be thwarted or belated by filing the revision even against the interlocutory order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand relied on a decision reported in State Bank of India Faizabad v. Hari Narain, 1980 All LJ NOC 8 p. 11. In this case it has been held : "In a case decided" in Section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act being an expression of comprehensive import could not be confined to final determination of the proceedings but would cover orders in interlocutory matters and on preliminary issues affecting the rights of the parties." Thus it has also relied on the use of word "order" and "decree" under the same Section thereby making it clear that not only final order but even interlocutory order is also revisable. It is true that even interlocutory order could be a case subject to revision according to this decision under S.25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. However, the question still remains whether the words used "case decided" under S.25 of the said Act would also apply to the present interlocutory matters. Only those interlocutory order could be revisable affecting the right of the parties. It is also true that the principle laid down under S.115 that interlocutory order is not revisable may not come under the terms of S.25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act but there is no difference to the meaning of the 'case decided' as it would be the same which has been used under S.115 and also under S.25 of the aforesaid Act. In Maheshwari Oil Mill v. M/s. Girjanath Durga Saran (supra) it has been held that refusal to certain interrogatories could not be a "case decided". Similar situation is in the present case and in view of this it would not amount to "case decided" as it does not affect any of his rights which is subject matter of decision in the said suit.