ORDER :- The plaintiff applicant filed a suit for restraining the defendants from removing the plaintiff from the dealership of outlet No. ODD 803 situated at G. T. Road, Lahartara, Varanasi of which he claimed to be an authorised dealer on behalf of defendant No. 1. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The defendants immediately put in appearance and alleged that they had appointed some third person as a dealer and that they have sponsored the name of that third person before the Excise Officer for grant of a licence. After hearing the parties the trial Court, by its order dated 10-3-1972, granted three days' time to the defendants to file documents and detailed objections and in the meantime issued a temporary injunction as prayed for. Against the aforesaid order the defendants filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Varanasi, the very next day and made an application for staying the operation of the injunction order passed by the trial Court. The learned District Judge passed the following order :

"Heard counsel for the appellant. Meanwhile operation of the order dated 10-3-72 shall remain stayed."

Against the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge dated 11-3-1972 the present revision has been filed. The primary question for consideration is whether the present revision is maintainable inasmuch as the impugned order amounts to a "case decided" within the meaning of Section 115, C. P. C. or not. It is not disputed that the order passed by the learned District Judge is an ex parte order and the application for injunction is still pending before him.

In Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 the Supreme Court thus interpreted the word "case" :

"The expression 'case' is a word of comprehensive import : it includes civil proceedings other than suits, and is not restricted by anything contained in the Section to the entirety of the proceeding in a civil Court."

The Supreme Court further observed :

"The expression 'case' includes a suit, but in ascertaining the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court, there would be no warrant for equating it with a suit alone."

The words "case decided" used in Section 115, C. P. C. have been the subject-matter of innumerable judicial decisions. It is not necessary to refer to the various decisions wherein these words have been interpreted. It is sufficient for my purpose to refer to the Full Bench case of Rama Shanker Tiwari v. Mahadeo, 1968 All LJ 109 (FB). In this case the earlier decisions have been fully considered and analysed and the following observations from a Full Bench decision of seven Judges of the Lahore High Court in Bibi Gurdevi v. Chaudhari Mohammad Bakhsh, AIR 1943 Lah 65 (FB) has been cited with approval :

"The word 'case' in Section 115 does not always mean the whole suit. It is of a very wide import, and means any state of facts judicially 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 Section 115, ... ... ... ... ... ... ...".

It, therefore, follows that there must be a decision on any substantial question in controversy between the parties affecting their rights. If the controversy has arisen by means of an independent application, that application must be finally disposed of by the court before it can be said that a case has been decided within the meaning of Section 115, C. P. C.

2. A careful reading of the aforesaid decisions indicates that although the word "case" is wider than the word "suit", the order sought to be revised must decide the controversy between the parties affecting their rights.

Various interlocutory orders may be passed while that proceeding is pending, but

Click Here to Read the rest of this document