SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Pat) 211

PATNA HIGH COURT
Shivanugrah Narain and . JJ.
Dwarika Prasad Kejriwal
Versus
Rajendra Prasad Sao
Civil Review No. 2345 of 1978 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 11, 1979

The expression any order made occurring in the Explanation to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure means each and every order made in the course of a suit or proceeding.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 115 - REVISION - SCOPE - EXPLANATION - ANY ORDER MADE - MEANING - INCLUDES EACH AND EVERY ORDER MADE IN THE COURSE OF A SUIT OR PROCEEDING - ORDER STAYING EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS DURING PENDENCY OF APPLICATION UNDER ORDER IX, RULE 13, C. P. C. - JUDICIAL ORDER - REASONS FOR REJECTING APPLICATION MUST BE GIVEN - FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS - ILLEGAL EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside an ex parte decree for eviction from the suit premises and for arrears of rent. The court below stayed the execution proceedings during the pendency of the application, but directed the petitioner to pay the decretal dues and costs within one week, failing which the stay order would stand vacated. The petitioner filed a revision application challenging the order of the court below.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order of the court below was a case which had been decided within the meaning of the expression as used in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. The court further held that the expression any order made occurring in the Explanation to Section 115 means each and every order made in the course of a suit or proceeding. The court also held that the order of the court below was an interlocutory order of the kind specified in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 115 (1) of the Code, as it would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner if allowed to stand.

Issues: 1. Whether the order of the court below was a case which had been decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the expression any order made occurring in the Explanation to Section 115 means each and every order made in the course of a suit or proceeding? 3. Whether the order of the court below was an interlocutory order of the kind specified in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 115 (1) of the Code?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of the court below was a case which had been decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, because the Explanation to Section 115 includes any order made in the course of a suit or proceeding within the ambit of the expression any case which has been decided. 2. The court held that the expression any order made occurring in the Explanation to Section 115 means each and every order made in the course of a suit or proceeding, because the words any order are of the widest possible import and there is no compelling reason to give them a restricted meaning. 3. The court held that the order of the court below was an interlocutory order of the kind specified in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 115 (1) of the Code, because it would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner if allowed to stand.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the court below, and directed the learned Munsif to consider the application afresh and pass orders on the application giving reasons either for allowing or rejecting the application after taking into account the material already on the record.

Judgment

Shivanugrah Narain, J.

1. The opposite party, rajendra Prasad Sao, filed titled Suit no.34 of 1976 in the second court of the Munsif, Monghyr, for eviction of the petitioner, Dwarika Prasad kejriwal, from the suit premises and for arrears of rent on the allegation that dwarika Prasad Kejriwal was his tenant and has defaulted in payment of rent. The learned Munsif decreed the suit expare on 23rd February, 1978. On 11th September, 1978 the petitioner filed an application under order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil procedure, hereinafter called the Code, which was registered as Miscellaneous case no.45 of 1978 in the second court of the Munsif at Monghyr for setting aside that exparte decree on the ground that the aforesaid decree had been obtained by fraudulent suppression of the processes in the suit without knowledge to the petitioner and the petitioner could know about the decree only on 10th September, 1978. By that time the exparte decree for delivery of possession on the suit premises as are arrears of rent had been put into execution the petitioner who was judgment-debtor in Execution Case No.8 of 1978 in which the execution was proceeding, on 11th September, 1978 itself filed an application before the executing court which was the same court who has passed the decree for staying the proceeding in the execution case pending the final disposal of Miscellaneous case no.45 of 1978 for setting aside the ex parte decree. The learned Munsif, after staying that the aforesaid petition had been filed and copy was served and both sides have been heard, passed the following order, "the execution is stayed till one week. The judgment debtor is directed to pay the decretal dues and cost of the suit within one week failing which stay order will stand vacated". It is against the aforesaid order that the petitioner has come up in revision in this Dourt.

2. Sri Jugal Kishore Prasad, appearing on behalf of the opposite-party, urged that the present revision application is not maintainable inasmuch as the order sought to be revised does not amount to a "case decided" by the learned Munsif, and therefore no revision lies. In support of this contention sri Prasad has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramgulam choudhary and others V/s. Nawin Choudhary and others (AIR 1912 Patna 499) in which it was held that the order of the trial court allowing the plaintiff to adduce further evidence even after the defendants had already closed their case, did not amount to a case decided and, therefore, no revision under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable against that order. In coming to this conclusion untwalia, J. as he then was, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Baldev Das and another V/s. Filmistan distributors (india) (P) Ltd. and others (AIR 1970 Supreme Court 406)that a case may be said to be decided if the court adjudicates for the purpose of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. It is argued that by refusing to stay the execution case during the pendency of the aforesaid miscellaneous case the court below did not adjudicate upon any right or obligation of the parties in controversy.

3. In my opinion, for the purpose of determining whether the impugned order amounts to a "case which has been decided", it is not necessary to consider whether the impugned order adjudicated upon any right or obligation of the parties in controversy. Subsequent to the aforesaid decision of supreme Court, Sec.115 of the code has been amended by the Civil procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Amendment act, 1976) and in view of the Explanation inserted in Sec.115 by the amendment Act, 1976 the impugned order clearly amounts to a case which has been decided within the meaning of expression as used in Sec.115 of the Code. It is not disputed that the present case is governed by the code as amended by the Amendment Act, 1976.

4. Section 115 of the Code as amended b

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top