The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.17 of 1993 in the Court of District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai. They filed a suit for declaration of their possessory title to the suit property which is in T.S.No.59 within Mayiladuthurai Town and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful enjoyment of this piece of land. The allegation in the plaint is to the effect that the ground site of this property belongs to Arulmigu Kumarakattalai Sri Subramaniaswamy Devasthanam. The father of the defendants/ respondents, by name Kuppusamy, the original lessee of this land has assigned his lease-hold right therein in favour of one Kasambu Achi by means of a hand-letter dated 22. 1977 executed for a consideration of Rs.3.000, The said Kuppusamy has also conveyed the land in favour of the said Kasambu under the registered sale-deed dated 212. 1976. Kasambu and her husband Narayanasamy are no more. Revision petitioners are the sons of the brother of Kasambu. They are enjoying the trees in the suit properly. Since the respondents tried to cut the trees in the suit property and tried to take forcible possession of the same, they have come forward with this action. The respondents resisted the suit contending that the suit property as well as the back-yard of the 2nd respondent’s house form one unit and are enclosed by a fence. Revision petitioners were never in enjoyment of this property. The documents relied on by them are fabricated. The alleged hand-letter dated 22. 1977 is a forged one. The property was never delivered to the revision petitioners pursuant to the hand-letter.

2. In the trial court, the revision petitioners sought to file the hand-letter dated 22. 1977 in evidence atleast for the collateral purposes under Sec.49 of the Registration Act. On the objection of the respondents, learned District Munsif, refused to receive it in evidence stating that the relief claimed in the suit is based on this hand-letter and it has not been filed for any collateral purpose. Plaintiffs assail this order in this revision petition.

3. At the outset, Thiru S.Sethurathnam, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents raised the preliminary objection on the maintainability of the revision. He argued that under the provisions of Sec.115, C.P.C., the High Court may call for the record of only a case which has been decided by any court subordinate to it. Rendering a finding on the admissibility of a document cannot be construed as a “case decided” within the meaning of Sec.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has pointed out that the Explanation to the said section gives an indication on this aspect. The said explanation says that in this section, the expression “any case which has been decided” includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings. A careful reading of this explanation would reveal that the order which could be challenged under Sec.15, C.P.C., must be one which could decide an issue. Unless the nature of the order is such that it tends to give a finding on the controversy in the cause it cannot be construed as “case decided”. In support of his claim, he has placed reliance on Gurdevi v. Md.Bakhsh, A.I.R. 1943 Lah. 65. There, it has been held that,

“The word” ‘case’ in Sec.15 does not always mean the whole suit. It is of a very wide import, and means any state of facts juridically considered. This meaning is wide enough to include a decision on any substantial question in controversy between the parties affecting their rights, even though such order is passed in the course of the trial of the suit. An interlocutory order deciding a question of this kind as distinguished from purely formal and incidental order is a ‘case decided’ within the meaning of Sec.115; but it will be open to revision only if the other conditions expressly laid down in Sec.15 are satisfied and the order has resulted or is likely to result in