SRI RAM Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of learned Sub-Judge, Jammu, dated May 6, 1977, by which he allowed an application of the plaintiffs - (respondents herein) for the examination of their witnesses namely Arjan Nath Trakoo, petition-writer, Srinagar, Ali Sheikh, Lambardar of village Nunnar Tehsil Gandarbal and the patwari Nunnar Circle Tehsil Gandarbal on commission.

(2.) FROM a perusal of the record it transpires that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated Jan. 14, 1974, and registered on the same day, executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 was null and void, and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiffs. During the course of trial, some evidence was recorded by the learned Sub- Judge, Jammu, when on April 27, 1977, an application was moved before the learned trial court for the examination of the above-named three witnesses on commission. On notice of that application being given to the defendants, they filed their objections to the application and submitted that the witnesses be directed to appear in court and be not examined on commission. The objections of the defendants did not find favour with the learned trial court. Aggrieved, with the order of the learned trial court the defendants have come up to this court by means of this revision petition.

(3.) MR . Dhanpat Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has in reply submitted that the trial court, while granting the application of the plaintiffs for the examination of three witnesses on commission, has acted with material irregularity and has committed an error in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It is urged that since the defendants cannot re-agitate the grievance with regard to the grant of commission in either by appeal or otherwise, the interlocutory order of the learned trial court would amount to a 'case decided' and be revisable under Section 115 C. P. C. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Dhanpat Rai on S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that to interpret the expression "case" as an entire proceedings only and not a part of proceedings would be to impose restriction upon the exercise of powers of superintendence which the revisional jurisdiction confers on the High Courts. Reliance has also been placed on M/s. Suraj Lal Bal Krishna Das v. Padrauna Raj Krishna Sugar Works, Ltd., AIR 1961 All 371. In that case a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held (at p. 372):-