Karnataka High Court
Y. Venkateswara Rao vs K. Nagamma And Anr. on 30 June, 1971
Equivalent citations: AIR 1972 Kant 254, AIR 1972 Mys 254, (1971) 2 MysLJ
H.B. Datar, J.
1. These two revision petitions are directed against the orders passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Bellary, dismissing applications filed by the defendant seeking leave of the court to serve the interrogatories, An application supported by an affidavit and the interrogatories which were sought to be delivered to the plaintiffs, appears to have been filed and the learned Judge while considering that application came to the conclusion that in the present case the interrogatories that were sought to be delivered to the plaintiff are matters relating to the evidence and therefore cannot be allowed to be delivered. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in these revision petitions.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that these revision petitions are not maintainable on the ground that the refusal by the court to give leave to a party to deliver the interrogatories is not a case decided. In support of this preliminary objection, two decisions are relied upon, one is a decision of the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Sind, in the case of Yusiffally Alibhoy and Co. v. Haji Mohamed, AIR 1920 Sind 1. In that case it was held that :
"An order disallowing interrogatories is not a decree and is not open to appeal, nor is such an order open to revision, as the party adversely affected thereby has a remedy by way of appeal from the final decision of the Court."
3. In AIR 1961 Tripura 23, Raj Mohan Saha v. Maharaja of Tripura, it was stated by the Judicial Commissioner's Court thus;
"Where the lower court considers the interrogatories to be quite unnecessary for the purpose of the case and strikes out all of them, the court in revision under Section 115 will not go through all of them and see whether on the pleadings of the parties they were material."
The view taken by that court was that this cannot be done in a revision petition filed under Section 115. Civil P. C.
As against this, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Judicial Commissioner's Court of Nagpur in AIR 1934 Nag 181 (Shamrao v. Motiram). In that case it was stated that :
"The order of the lower court under Order 11, Rule 11. asking to make sufficient answers amounts to a case decided and if there has been a material irregularity in allowing interrogatories which are not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs it is necessary to intervene to prevent injustice being done."
4. In my view, the principle as to what is the case decided, has been laid down in two leading Judgments of the Supreme Court. (1) in S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dhillon, and (2) in Baldevdas v. Filrnistan Distributors, . In . this
is what has been stated:
"The expression 'case' is not limited In its import to the entirety of the matter in dispute in an action. The expression 'case' is a word of comprehensive import; it includes a civil proceeding and is not restricted by anything contained in Section 115 of the Code to the entirety of the proceeding in a Civil Court. To interpret the expression 'case' as an entire proceeding only and not a part of the proceeding imposes an unwarranted restriction on the exercise of powers of superintendence and may result in certain cases in denying relief to the ask grieved litigant where it is most needed and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice. 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."
5. The question therefore that has to be seen is as to whether a decision given by the Court refusing grant of leave to serve interrogatories it can be said that the court had adjudicated some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. What is being sought under Order 11. Rule 11, Civil P. C. is the leave to deliver interrogatories. When the court exercises its judicial discretion in granting or refusing the leave, it cannot be stated to be an adjudication of some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. In that view, the preliminary objection has to be upheld and both the revision petitions therefore fail. Consequently, these revision petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment