MONORANJAN DEY Vs. DHIRENDRA CHANDRA PAUL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was a defendant in Title Suit No. 8/78 filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12 for discovery of certain documents. This prayer was rejected by the learned trial Court after having perused the reply on behalf of the plaintiff filed by one Subhas Chandra Paul claiming himself to be an attorney of the plaintiff in which it was stated that the plaintiff had no documents to produce. Against this order a petition was preferred under Rule 35 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Garo Hills District. The learned Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the same being of the view that the petition before him was not maintainable as it was against an interlocutory order.

(2.) SHRI Das urges that the view taken by the learned Deputy Commissioner is erroneous inasmuch as the order against which he approached the learned Deputy Commissioner has to be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of first para of Rule 35 of the aforesaid Rules. To bring home this point Shri Das refers to the decisions which have dealt with this question in the context of Section 115 of the C. P. C. which has also provided that a revision lies against a case decided only. It has been held in S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon that the word 'case' is not limited in its import to the entirety of the matter in dispute. But then every order of the Court in the course of a suit does not also amount to a case decided. If some legally enforceable claim or right is decided by an order that would be a "case decided" within the meaning of Section 115. This point was further examined in Baldevdas v. Filmist -an Distributors , wherein it has been observed that a case may be said to be decided if the Court adjudicates for the purpose of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy.

(3.) THUS , though the view of the learned Deputy Commissioner that the petition before him was not maintainable is not correct, no relief can be given to the petitioner because of the stand taken by the plaintiff that he did not have the documents sought to be inspected.