KEDARMAL RAMLAL Vs. GOPALDAS RAOSAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petn. is for revision against the order of the Dist J., Ujjain dated 17 -12 -1948. The opposite party who is the pltf in the case filed a suit against the petnr. for the return of certain property which his father entrusted to the deft, for safe custody. One of the issues in the suit was whether Appibai is a necessary party in the suit. That issue was decided by the lower Ct. against the deft. Against that decision the deft has filed this petn.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the opposite party that this petn. cannot be entertained. The learned counsel for the opposite party argues that the decision of the question whether Appibai is a necessary party in the suit or not does not affect the jurisdiction of the Ct, & hence under cl. (c) of S. 115, C.P.C. this petn. cannot be entertained. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on Lakshmi Shanker v. Ramakant, : A.I.R. 1950 ALL. 144: (1949 A.L.J. 438) & Brijmanohar v. Rama Nand,, A.I.R. 1939 Oudh 102 : (14 Luck. 447) & Kantimohan v. Ramballabh, : A.I.R. 1934 pat. 370 : (152 I.C. 778) & Kunja Behari v. Chintomoni Das, : A.I.R. 1934 pat. 425 : (148 I.C. 347). The learned counsel for the petnr. on the contrary relies on Gopi Hath v. Mamtaz Ali, A.I.R. 1929 Oudh 148 : (116 I.C. 58) & argues that the question as to whether a party is a necessary party or not is revisable under s. 115, C.P.C. The case cited by the learned counsel for the petnr. has no bearing on the point raised. In that case it was held that the proceeding under which a person is ordered to be added as a deft amounts to a case within the meaning of S. 115, C.P.C. & therefore the order was liable to revision. Thai is not the point at issue. The point raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party is that the decision of the question whether Appibai is a necessary party or not has no effect on the jurisdiction of the Ct. & hence even if the decision be wrong the order is not revisable under S. 115, C.P.C. In Lakshmi Shanker v. Rama Nand, : A.I.R. 1950 ALL. 144 : (1949 A.L.J. 439), relying upon Jay Chand v. Kamalaksha, : A.I.R. 1949 P.C. 239 : (76 I.A. 131) & Yakub Khan v. Sirajul Haq, : A.I.R. 1949 ALL. 771 : (1949 A.L.J. 288) the learned Judge came to the conclusion that if the decision of a question of law has no effect upon the jurisdiction of the Ct. it cannot be interfered with in a revision under S. 115, C.P.C. In Yakub Khan v. Sirajul Haq. : A.I.R. 1949 ALL. 771 : (1949 A.L.J. 288), the learned Judges observed as follows:

(3.) ACCORDINGLY I dismiss the petn. With costs.