An order must decide or affect the right and obligation of a party to constitute 'a case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The principal question for consideration is whether an order rejecting the application for reference of disputed documents to a handwriting expert constitutes "case............decided" within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By his order dated 27-6-1991 in I.A. No. 1440 of 1991 in O.P. No. 85 of 1987 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Talassery, dismissed the husband's prayer for an order directing the wife, to furnish her specimen handwriting for the purpose of comparing them with the disputed letters (Exts. A8 to A14) alleged to have been written by her to her paramour. He impugns the validity of this order.

2. The facts out of which the petition arises are these:

O.P. No. 85 of 1987 by the husband is for decree of divorce on the ground that his wife (respondent No. 1) committed adultery with Balakrishnan (respondent No. 2). The petition was filed in 1987. The evidence commenced in 90. The wife, in her written statement, filed in 1987, specifically denied that she wrote the disputed letters to Balakrishnan. The evidence of the husband (P.W. 1) commenced on 16-3-1990 and ended on 24-3-1990. The husband's second witness (P.W. 2) was examined on 31-5-1990. The testimony of the husband's father (P.W. 3) was recorded between 1-8-1990 and 8-8-1990. The last witness of the petitioner who is supposed to have taken possession of the disputed letters was examined on 18-9-1990. The evidence of the wife was recorded between 16-11-1990 and 22-6-1991. Meanwhile on 18-65-1991, I.A. No. 1440 of 1991 on which the impugned order was made was filed. No application for securing the evidence of a handwriting expert for the purpose of establishing the identity of handwriting of the disputed letters and the handwriting of the respondent was made until the wife, once again, this time in her testimony denied that she wrote the letters.

3. The learned Principal Sub Judge held that reference of the documents to a handwriting expert at this stage will cause further delay in the disposal of this petition. He therefore rejected the application.

4. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) can be invoked only in "any case which has been decided" by the subordinate court. These words circumscribe and limit the re-visional jurisdiction in a fundamental way. If the order sought to be revised does not "decide" "a case" the High Court does not possess the power to revise such orders.

5. The content of the expression "any case which has been decided" has been analysed and laid down by the Supreme Court in two decisions, Major S. S. Khanna v. Brigedier F. J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 : (1963 All LJ 1068) and Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 406. The substance of these decisions is:

(i) The expression "case" is a word of comprehensive import embracing all civil proceedings other than suits.

(ii) "case" includes a part of the suit or proceedings and need not dispose of the entire suit or proceedings.

(iii) In order to constitute "a case which has been decided", the order sought to be revised must decide or affect the right and obligation of a party (Major S. S. Khanna v. Brigedier F. J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 : (1963) All LJ 1068 )).

(iv) A case may be said to be decided if the court adjudicates, for the purpose of the suit or other proceeding, some right or obligation of the parties in controversy Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., (AIR 1970 SC 406).

6. The Code underwent a change with effect from 1-2-1977 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976). The Amending Act retains the original Section 115 intact, except that it is now renumbered as sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure:

"115. Revision - (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has