Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Satish Chandra, C. J.
MAHESHWARI OIL MILL - Appellant
Versus
GIRJANATH DURGA SARAN - Respondents
Civil Revn. 1416 Of 1979
Decided On : 02/26/1980
( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order refusing to give leave to the defendant to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiff,
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff opposite-party raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order does not amount to case decided within the meaning of Section 115 C. P. C. He relies on Y. Venkateswara Rao v. K. Nagamma AIR 1972 Mys 254. There, after consideration of the Supreme Court decisions, the Court held that when the Court exercise its judicial discretion in granting or refusing to grant leave to deliver interrogatories, it cannot be said to be an adjudication of some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. The order does not amount to case decided. It is analogous to overruling or sustaining an objection to a question put to a witness. These are purely interlocutory orders which are not revisable.
( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant relies upon Shamrao v. Moti Ram AIR 1934 Nag 181. In that case, there is a passing observation that such an order amounts to case decided. No reasons have been given. I am unable to agree with it, In my opinion, an order refusing to grant leave to a party to deliver interrogatories is not a case decided within meaning of Section 115, C. P. C.
( 4 ) THIS revision is accordingly dismissed with costs.
.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
