KULBHUSHAN DASS JINDAL Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated April, 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Sirsa. The order is a short one and is reproduced in extenso :-

(2.) THE cross-examination of witness is one of the most important processes devised by the Courts for elucidation of facts of the case and all reasonable latitude should be allowed to the parties in this regard. This Court, however has undoubted control and discretion in the matter of controlling the cross-examination of a party by the counsel of the opposite party. If irrelevant questions are repeated, the Court has the power to put a stop to it. Where the Court is satisfied that cross-examination of any witness is being unnecessarily prolonged, it will control the examination, if necessary, stopping by any further irrelevant question. Protracted examination of witness with questions which are quite irrelevant to the suit, and only tend to swell the size of the record, must be deprecated. It is an abuse, which enormously increases the cost of litigation without any corresponding benefit to the parties. (see in this connection Raj Kumar Sen Chowdhary and others v. Ram Sundar Shaha and others, AIR 1932 Privy Counsel 69). Section 115 of the Code under which this revision petition has been filed deserves notice at this stage. The relevant parts thereof are reproduced for ready reference :- S. 115. Revision. - (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears -

(3.) IN the present case, rights and obligations of the parties have not been decided by the impugned order. Shri N.C. Jain, learned counsel for hthe petitioner has produced brfore me certified copy of the transcript of the statement of P.W.1 which runs into nine typed pages. The learned trial Judge recorded nine questions put by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and disallowed the same. Thereafter he observed that hte learned counsel was repeating the same question and the questions were irrelevant. So he directed the learned counsel to give any further question in writing to that the same may be placed on the record. The order of the learned trial Judge does not tantamount to a case decided. By disallowing certain questions asked by the learned counsel, teh court has not decided any rights and obligations of the parties. On the strength of a decision of Madhya Bharat High Court in Onkar Bhikaram v. Javarchand, AIR 1957 Madhya Bharat 135, Mr. Jain contended that the impugned order was revisable. Indeed, a revision petition under section 115 of the Code had been allowed by the Madhya Bharat High Court against an order disallowing certain questions being put to the plaintiff during the cross-examination. However, it is cler that the impugnedorder was not a case decided and the same was not revisable under section 115 of the Code. So the decision in Onkar Bhikaram's case (supra) is not a precedent for the proposition of law falling for adjudication in the present case. The case directly applicable to the facts of the present case is the decision of the final Court in Baldevdas Shivlal and another v. Filistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 1970 SC 406. It has been observed therein"...but every order of the court in the course of a suit does not amount to a case decided. A case may be said to be decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy, every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115. By overruling an objection to a question put to a witness and allowing the question to be put, no case is decided". By disallowing certain irrelevant questions of the learned counsel, the learned trial Judge did not decide any case. A similar view was taken by teh Karnataka High Court is Muriqappa v. Channappa, AIR 1977 Karnataka 111, wherein it was observied "x x x when the trial Judge allows an objection and disallows a question put to the witness or when the overruled an objection and allows the question put to the witness, it cannot be said that the case is 'decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the C.P.C. Therefore, the revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is not maintainable". Respectfully, following the above decisions I hold that the present revision petition is not competent and the same is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-. Petition dismissed.