JUDGMENT

Bhide, J. - In the course of the trial of a civil suit for recovery of possession of certain property, the proceedings were stayed by, Court on receipt of intimation from a Debt Conciliation Board under Section 25, Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, in respect of certain proceedings taken before the Board. The plaintiff objected that the Board had no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings with respect to the subject-matter of the suit and the suit should not be stayed. But the objection was overruled. The plaintiff then filed a petition for revision of the order of stay in this Court under Section 115, Civil P.C. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondents by their learned Counsel that the order of stay being of an interlocutory character and the suit not having been yet finally decided, the petition for revision was not competent. In support of this contention he relied chiefly on a Full Bench ruling of this Court reported in Lal Chand-Mangal Chand Sen v. Behari Lal-Mehar Chand A.I.R. 1924 Lah. 425. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand relied on certain later rulings of this Court, viz., Kesar Singh v. Shiro-mani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Arnritsar A.I.R. 1927 Lah. 394, Punjab Marwari Chamber of Commerce, Ltd. v. Ram Lal-Lilu Shah A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 644, Sadaqat Ali Khan v. Mohammad Sajjad Ali Khan A.I.R. 1929 Lah. 257, Jiwan Mal-Tbakur Das v. Shahzadah Nand & Sons A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 66, Muhammad Din v. Nawab Muzaffar Gauhar A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 503 in support of his contention, that the order of stay was tantamount to a case decided' within the meaning of that expression as used in Section 115, Civil P.C. There being a considerable divergence of judicial authority on the point and the question being important, the case has been referred to a Full Bench for decision. The decision of the point referred depends on the true interpretation to be placed on the expression case which has been decided' as used in Section 115, Civil P.C. That section runs as follows:

The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such 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 illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.

2. In Lal Chand-Mangal Chand Sen v. Behari Lal-Mehar Chand A.I.R. 1924 Lah. 425,it was held that the word 'case' when used with reference to a suit must be taken to mean the whole suit and the decision of any branch of the suit, e. g., decision on an issue as to jurisdiction could not be looked upon as a 'case decided'. But, in later decisions of this Court, it has been held that when a suit is stayed owing to reference of material issues to the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal or owing to reference of the case to arbitration, the order of stay may be looked upon as a 'case decided' within the meaning of the section: see Kesar Singh v. Shiro-mani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Arnritsar A.I.R. 1927 Lah. 394 and Punjab Marwari Chamber of Commerce, Ltd. v. Ram Lal-Lilu Shah A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 644. Similarly, orders relating to ancillary matters, e.g., appointment of a guardian, permission to sue as a pauper and petitions to set aside ex parte decisions have also been held to be tantamount to a 'case decided': see Jiwan Mal-Tbakur Das v. Shahzadah Nand & Sons A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 66, Hari Chand v. Mt. Durga Devi 28 A.I.R. Lah 1941 and Piroj Shah v. Qarib Shah A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 379. In other High Courts also, opinion has varied as will be pointed out hereafter. While some High Courts have held that in a 'suit', the High Court is not entitled to entertain a petition for revision until the whole suit is decided and cannot, therefore, interfere with orders passed during the pendenc