USHA PATNAIK Vs. GOUTAM PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 26 of 1990 -I of the Court of Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Cuttack are the petitioners against the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the interrogatories to be answered by the plaintiffs under Order 11, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.P.C').

(2.) THE suit is one for partition of the properties described in the plaint in which the plaintiffs together claim 2/3rd share. Their case is that Schedules 'A' and 'B' properties were properties of their mother Smt. Baijayanti Pattnaik who died on 1 -3 -1983 and Dr. Chandramohan Pattnaik who died on 25 -6 -1959. The plaintiffs are the daughters and defendant is the son of late Smt. Baijayanti Pattnaik,. Defendant appeared on 31 -3 -1990 pursuant to summons and on 4 -12 -1990 he filed a petition under Order 11, Rule 1, C.P.C. praying for directing the plaintiffs to answer interrogatories narrated in para -2 of the revision petition. The plaintiffs filed objection showing that the interrogatories should not be permitted before filing of the written statement by the defendant. They also took the stand that the interrogatories sought to be answered are irrelevant. The teamed trial Court after hearing both parties allowed the first three questions to be answered by way of interrogatories, whereas the last two were refused as irrelevant. Hence, the plaintiffs filed this revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for opposite party raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision saying that the order impugned in this revision does not amount to 'case decided ' within the meaning of Section 115 of the C.P.C. According to him, in answer to the interrogatories, objection can be taken that it is scandalous or irrelevant or unnecessary for the purpose of the suit etc. as provided in Rule 6 of the same Order. He has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1986 Orissa 42 (Dr. Ashok Kumar Tripathy v. Dalmia Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research) in which this Court expressed a view that an interlocutory order rejecting a patty's application under Order 11, Rule 1 for leave to deliver interrogatories, does not amount to 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 C.P.C. Such order does not decide any rights and liabilities of parties relevant for purposes of suit. The revision against the order was held not to be maintainable. His Lordship expressing the aforesaid view relied on various decisions some of which relate to the period prior to the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code, 1976. His Lordship has also expressed the view that after the amendment of Section 115. C.P.C. in 1976, it has not really widened the scope of the revisional power of the Court and also expressed that unless an interlocutory order determines some rights or obligations of the parties for the purpose of the suit, the impugned order will not come under the expression 'case decided. Hence, it will not be revisable. The learned counsel, besides many other decisions, also placed reliance or; a decision decided by the said Hon'ble Judge reported in 1984 (I) OLR 967 (Ramesh Lal Shantuka v. Suresh Lal Shantuka) in which a different view was taken. In the earlier decision the Hon'ble Judge held that the meaning of the term 'case decided' has been widened after the amendment introducing the explanation to Sub -section (2) of Section 115, C.P.C. But in spite of this extended meaning the Courts have held that any and very order passed in the course of a suit does not amount to a 'case decided' and the order must relate to adjudication of same right or obligation of the parties in controversy for this purpose. At any rate, earlier decision of the learned Judge was considered by another Single Judge of this Court reported in 1985 (I) OLB 12 (Doshei Dei and Ors. v. Rama Rauta and Ors.) which takes notice of the various decisions including the one in 1934. (I) OLR 967 (supra) and this Court held that on a conspectus of the principles enunciated by this Court and other High Courts and the objectives behind the legislative change, the law with regard to the scope and ambit of Section 115 of the Code as amended in 1976 seems to be fairly well settled. The view expressed was that the meaning of the expression 'case decided' has been widened rather than being narrowed. It was held that every order passed by a Court in the course of a suit or proceeding does not amount to a 'case decied'. A case may be said to be decided if the Court adjudicates for the purpose of the suit or proceeding some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. I am in agreement with the aforesaid decision of this Court.