S.D. Agarwal, J.
1. This is a civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Bareilly dt. 19-1-1985 by which the applications moved by the revisionists for cross-examination of the plaintiff, Rakesh Jain and Sri P.K. Singh who had filed affidavits in the case were rejected.
2. Suit No. 381 of 1984 was filed by Rakesh Jain, plaintiff opposite party in the Court of Civil Judge, Bareilly against the revisionists and others including the tenants of the property for partition and declaration of l/3rd share, accounting and payment of proportionate rent to him. During the pendency of the suit an application was made for appointment of a receiver. In support of this application affidavits were filed of the plaintiff, and P.K. Singh. Counter-affidavits, thereafter, were filed by the revisionists. Before the matter could be heard the revisionists filed an application for cross-examination of Rakesh Jain, Plaintiff and P.K. Singh who had filed affidavits. The Civil Judge, Bareilly after examining the merits of the matter came to the conclusion that it was not necessary in the interest of justice to permit cross-examination of the plaintiff, Rakesh Jain and Sri P.K. Singh and hence rejected the application moved by the revisionists by the impugned order dt. 19-1-1985. This order has now been challenged by means of the present revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the revisionists has urged that the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to allow him to cross-examine the plaintiff, Rakesh Jain and P.K. Singh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the order in question does not amount to a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Civil P. C. and as such no revision lies against this order.
4. Order XIX Rule 2 of the Civil P. C. empowers the Court to order for attendance of a deponent for cross-examination which provides that at the instance of a party the person who has given an affidavit may be called for cross-examination. It is a discretionary power given to the Court after examining the facts of the case. In the instant case the Court below has considered the facts of the case and came to the conclusion that it is not a fit case where the plaintiff, Rakesh Jain and P.K. Jain were called for cross-examination on their affidavits. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the application moved by the revisionists.
5. In any case, I agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the revision is not maintainable under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. Section 115(1) provides as follows : --
'115. Revision :-- (1) 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 jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction or 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.'
6. A proviso has been added to Section 115 by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 1st of February, 1977 which reads as follows : --
'Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where--
(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings, or
(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
2. The High Court shall not, under this section vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.'
In a recent decision of this Court in Kailash Singh v. Agarwal Export Corporaton, 1984 All LJ 30, this Court had occasion to consider the meaning given to the words 'case decided'. It was held as follows : --
'Orders passed merely for the progress of a proceeding are not orders, deciding a case, and would accordingly not fall within the meaning of the expression, 'case decided'. They are only steps towards the final adjudication of the case, and only regulate the procedure, and do not affect any right or obligation of the parties. Discovery or production of documents accordingly is not a matter relating to the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy in a suit, and hence an order in that regard does not amount to 'case decided'.'
7. This opinion was expressed by this Court relying on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokal Chand, AIR 1967 SC 799.
8. I fully agree with the decision given in the case of Kailash Singh, (1984 All LT 30) (supra). The mere fact that an application for seeking a cross-examination of a deponent is rejected does not decide any right or obligation between the parties. It is only a step towards the final adjudication of the case. In the circumstances, in my opinion, it does not amount to a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Civil P. C.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionists has, however, urged that the impugned order is a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Civil P. C. He has relied in support of his contention on two cases. The first case relied on is Kailash Nath Agarwal v. Amar Nath Agarwal, AIR 1969 All 82. In this case a reference was made to the Munsif under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to decide the question whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute on the material date. When this application came up for hearing before the Munsif, an application was made for cross-examination of the deponent on the affidavit which had been filed before the Magistrate under Section 145(1) of the Criminal P. C. This application was rejected by the Munsif on the ground that it had no power to call upon the persons concerned to attend the Court for subjecting themselves to cross-examination. Since the Munsif refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, the High Court held that a revision lay against the order as the Munsif had wrongly construed the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil P. C. This was not a case where the Munsif had applied its mind on the merits as to whether the application for cross-examination should be allowed or not. In the circumstances, the principle laid down in this case does not apply to the present case where the Court below has after examining the merits of the case come to the conclusion that no case for calling the deponent for cross-examination was made out. In my opinion, this case is clearly distinguishable.
10. The second case relied upon by the learned counsel is Raiya Lakshmi v. Seeta Mahalakshrm, AIR 1973 Andh Pra 203. In this case the question whether the order rejecting an application for cross-examination of the deponent amounts to a 'case decided' was not specifically decided. This question was not specifically adverted by the court In any case, even if it is taken that impliedly the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken a view that this order amounts to a 'case decided' I respectfully disagree with the same.
11. In my opinion, an order rejecting the application for cross-examination of a deponent of an affidavit does not amount to a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Civil P.C. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents is sustainable in law.
12. In the result, the revision is dismissed. The interim order dated 30-2-1985 is hereby vacated. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.