Back
1983 Supreme(Cal) 186
High Court Of Calcutta
A. M. Pal
GOPAL CHAKRABORTY - Appellant
Versus
SABITAMOYEE GHOSH - Respondent
C. R. 3670 Of 1981
Decided On : 07/14/1983
KAJAL KUMAR BORAL, MANABENDRA BANERJEE, SUBODH BHATTACHARJI, TAPAS ROY
The word "case" in Section 115 of the Civil P. C. has a wider context that the term suit or appeal and the word "proceeding" cannot be confined to the proceedings of suit or appeal.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 115 - REVISION - ORDER PASSED IN AN APPLICATION FOR PARTICULARS - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS CASE DECIDED AND PROCEEDING - SCOPE OF SECTION 115 - AMENDMENT OF SECTION 115 - EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROVISO - IRREPARABLE INJURY OR FAILURE OF JUSTICE - EXERCISE OF POWERS OF SUPERINTENDENCE - JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WRITS - SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION - UNIT OF JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION CASE - SCOPE OF THE EXPRESSION CASE - UNITS OF JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for a decree declaring that the defendant has no right to enter into or possess the shop room, decree for accounts, and a decree for possession and other reliefs ancillary thereto. The defendant before filing the written statement made an application for particulars. The learned Judge dismissed the said application stating that "in the garb of better particulars the defendant wants the plaintiffs to disclose their evidence before the defendant has filed his written statement."
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order passed in an application for furnishing of particulars under Order 6, Rule 5, is valid. In a proper case in such a matter which can be said to be "proceeding"; application for revision is maintainable to prevent any irreparable loss caused to a party from an order which can be said to be a decision in a "case" which has a wider meaning and not confined to suit or appeal.
Issues: Whether the order passed in an application for furnishing of particulars under Order 6, Rule 5, is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the word "case" in Section 115 of the Civil P. C. has a wider context that the term suit or appeal and the word "proceeding" cannot be confined to the proceedings of suit or appeal. The court further held that the proviso to Section 115 has its exceptions after the amendment and they are as follows:-- (a) the order, if it had been made to favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the Rule accordingly with the directions made above. The stay order was vacated. The learned Judge was directed to fix the date within which the particulars are to be given. The written statement was to be filed within a date as fixed by the learned Judge after the particulars are given.
( 1 ) THIS Rule arises out of an application under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. and is directed against Order No. 12 dated August 19, 1981 passed by the Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2471 of 1980 rejecting a petition made by the defendant-petitioner Gopal Chakraborty under Order 6, Rule 5 of the Code.
( 2 ) FACTS of the case shortly are that the Plaintiffs-opposite parties filed a suit in the City Civil Court against the petitioner herein for a decree declaring that the defendant has no right to enter into or possess the shop room, decree for accounts and a decree for possession and for other reliefs ancillary thereto.
( 3 ) THE defendant before filing the written statement made an application for particulars. The learned Judge dismissed the said application stating that "in the garb of better particulars the defendant wants the plaintiffs to disclose their evidence before the defendant has filed his written statement. " __
( 4 ) MR. Tapas Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner refers the plaint to me and argues analysing para by para of the plaint that all the particulars were necessary and by refusing those particulars, the learned Judge has fallen into material irregularity/defect by not taking into consideration the provisions of Order 6, Rules 2 and 5 of the Civil P. C. He further argues that those particulars that were asked for are absolutely necessary for filing the written statement and his further contention is that his client has asked for particulars only for those statements in the plaint which are very vague and for which clarification is necessary,
( 5 ) MR. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs/opposite parties argues before me that the particulars that are sought for are in the nature of 'fishing' and the learned Judge rightly rejected it. Mr. Bhattacharyya further argues that the particulars that have been asked for are within the special knowledge of the defendant and as such the (application?) should not be allowed. It will be disclosure of the evidence before the suit is heard.
( 6 ) BUT main argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya is that revisional application is not maintainable in matters of such nature. He refers to me the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil P. C. and contends that such application would lie only when "a case has been decided" by any Court subordinate to High Court, The order that is passed, according to Mr. Bhattacharyya is not a decision in any case and he further contends that it is not a proceeding in the meaning of Section 115 (a) of the Civil P. C.
( 7 ) IN reply to the argument of Mr. Mukherjee (Bhattacharya) Mr. Roy has referred to me a judgment (Sukumar Chatterjee v. Kiron Chandra Mitter ). The Division Bench of our Court held that the word "case" in Section 115 of the Civil P. C. has a wider context that the term suit or appeal and in my view, the word "proceeding" cannot be confined to the proceedings of suit or appeal and as such the contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya that in such matter which involves the question of furnishing of particulars application for revision does not lie as it is not a case decided in a proceeding is not acceptable. Following the judgment I hold that case has a wider meaning and it is not confined to suit or appeal, I further hold that in a proper case in such matters which can be said to be proceeding application for revision is maintainable to prevent any irreparable loss or injury.
( 8 ) BUT there are number of decisions which held that the word 'case' is wide to include an interlocutory order and that the High Court has the power to interfere in revision of an order passed at any stage of a suit though there may be another remedy open to the injured party. In this case the defendant is entitled to some of the particulars which I shall indicate presently. I cannot go into the merit of this case at this stage but this well-known principle that when an agreement i
