SHANKAR Vs. DINA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Civil Revision Nos. 219 of 2001, 192 of 2002, 245 of 2002 and 420 of 2002, the orders impugned are the rejection of applications under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of pleadings, whereas in Civil Revision No. 448 by the order impugned, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint was allowed. Similarly, in Civil Revision No. 263 of 2002 by the impugned order the application under Order 18 Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and Defendants No. 2 and 3 were permitted to adduce evidence to controvert the evidence of Defendant No. 1 and in Civil Revision No. 335 of 2002 the order under challenge is the dismissal of application under Order 14 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure for framing of additional issues.

(2.) In all these revision petitions preliminary objection of maintainability has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(3.) It is urged by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that firstly the impugned orders are not the orders which fall within the zone of case decided as envisaged under Sub-section (1) of Section 115 and secondly in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115, the impugned orders are not liable to be varied or reversed as had these orders been made in favour of the Petitioners who have applied for revision, the suit or the proceedings would not have been finally disposed of. According to the learned Counsel, the word "proceedings" used in proviso does not pertain to the proceedings in the suit. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners have argued that the civil revisions are maintainable as these are against the impugned orders whereby some legally enforceable claim or right of the party aggrieved, has been decided and these orders must fall within the realm of "case decided". They have also submitted that in the proviso the word proceedings denotes the proceedings in the suit and not independent of the suit.