UNION OF INDIA Vs. BRAJEN SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued at the instance of the Union of India, as representing the East Indian Railway Administration. After the division of British India into two independent territories, namely, the Union of India and Pakistan) the plaintiff, the opposite party in the present case, one Brajen Saha, entered into a contract of carriage with the Government of Pakistan, as representing the Eastern Bengal Railway, at Faridpore for carriage of some goods to Calcutta. It appears from the plaint that the goods were not delivered. It is now clear that the goods were seized by the Land Customs at the Indian Land Frontier and detained there as a result of which when the goods were released they were found in such a condition that they had to be sold. The Union of India, as pointed out by Mr. Bose never denied the liability to pay over the actual sale proceeds held by them but the present suit is not for realisation of the same.

(2.) The plaintiff Brajen Saha brought the suit against the Union of India for non-delivery of the goods and claimed damages. Objection was taken by the Union of India of the jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Munsif, 1st Court, of Sealdah decided that he had "ample jurisdiction" to try this suit. Hence the revision petition to this Court.

(3.) It has been urged on behalf of the opposite party that no revision lies in the present case. I have been referred to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court and a Lahore decision to the effect that when the whole case is not decided but only a particular issue thereof, it is not a decision of the case and therefore Section 115, Civil P.C. will not apply. It is unnecessary for me to go into the question whether those two decisions are correct law or not. As far as this Court is concerned, it has been the uniform decision of all the Courts that decision of a part of a case is also a decision of a case within Section 115, Civil P.C. Under the circumstances, as by this decision the Munsif assumed jurisdiction where he has no such jurisdiction in law, clearly a revision will lie because that part of the order claiming "ample jurisdiction" is not subject to an appeal as such.