HAR VILAS Vs. KALYAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by the defendant-petitioner under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 12th July 1985, passed by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Karauli, in Civil Suit No. 27 of 1975, dismissing the application dated 15th February, 1985, by which the defendant desired to examine the Handwriting Expert to prove the document Ex. A. 3 alleged to bear the signature of the plaintiff's father Kishan Lal.

(2.) NOTICE has been taken by the defendant by entering upon a caveat and the parties desired that the revision petition be disposed of at this stage, as such, this revision petition is being decided at the admission stage.

(3.) IN Ghewar Chand vs. Gaj Singh (2), Hon'ble M. C. Jain J. while considering the scope and ambit of Sec. 115, CPC observed as follows :- "even when interlocutory order does not adjudicate or determine any rights or obligations of the parties in controversy in the suit, still, such an interlocutory order may occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury and as such, it can be said that such an order is revisable. The expression "any case which has been decided" includes 'any order made". It is true that the expression "any order made" includes within its embrace all sorts of orders. Such a wide connotation of course cannot be given to the expression "any order". An order which may ultimately affect the decision of the suit or which may ultimately affect the right of the party, though it is not adjudicating the right, may, in my opinion, be covered under the expression "any order".