1. Lala Nanak Chand and others, (hereinafter called the plaintiffs), filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against Smt. Shiv Kaur and others, (hereinafter called the defendants), in the court of Sub Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. By his judgment dated 24-12-1973, the learned Sub Judge decreed the suit. The defendants filed an appeal to the District Judge, which was transferred for disposal to the Additional District Judge, Srinagar. The appeal was filed beyond time. Alongwith the appeal the defendants filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that they were kept in dark by their lawyer about the result of the suit. At the hearing of the application counsel for fthe defendant sought opportunity to produce evidence in support of the allegations made in the application. The learned Additional District Judge declined the request observing:

"In this appeal which admittedly has been filed beyond the period of limitation an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been presented alongwith the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has today pressed that I should record his evidence in support of his application. But on going through the application itself I find that the grounds advanced for extension of time and condonation of delay are such which can be decided after taking into consideration the record itself. I do not think there is any necessity to record any evidence. In the circumstance the appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay shall simultaneously be argued on 29-10-1975.

Aggrieved by this order the defendants have filed this revision in this court.

2. Appearing for the respondents, Mr. A. N. Raina raised a preliminary objection that the revision was incompetent because, as he put it, the order is a mere interlocutory order closing the evidence and does not amount to a "case which has been decided within the meaning of section 115 Code of Civil Procedure. The determination of this question depends on the true interpretation of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides :

"The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears.

a. to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

b. to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

c. to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegaly or with material irregularity, or

d. to have caused failure of justice.

The High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."

3. This is as we have it in the Code of Civil procedure prevailing in our State. It differs from Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure prevailing in the rest of India in one respect and, that is, it contains an additional clause (d) which does not find place in section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure prevailing elsewhere in India. In either case, however, the jurisdiction of the High Court arises only if there is a case decided by the subordinate court in which no appeal lies to the High Court. But whereas the High Courts in India can exercise the jurisdiction if the MISSING LINE

4. The expression case is nowhere defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure prevailing in our State or in that prevailing in the rest of India. The generally accepted view always was that the expession case does not mean a suit only. It also includes a proceeding in a civil court in which the jurisdiction of the court is invoked for determination of some claim or right legally enforceable. But the opinion was by no means unanimous on the question whether an order, which did not finally dispose of the suit or proceeding, amounted to "a case which has been decided". One view accepted by the majority of the High Courts was that the expression case includes an interlocutory proceeding relating to the rights and obligations of the parties and the expressio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document