Skip to content


Ram Dass Vs. Sudarshan Kumar Jain - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 2317 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1984P& H254
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 115
AppellantRam Dass
RespondentSudarshan Kumar Jain
Cases ReferredHarvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram
Excerpt:
.....orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against..........for sending the receipt, exhibit p. 1, to a third handwriting expert has been dismissed by the trial court.2. a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the revision petition is not maintainable in view ot the provisions of section 115, of civil p: c. (hereinafter called the code), as the order passed, by the trial court does not amount to a 'case decided'. in support of this contention. reliance was placed on harvinder kaur v. godha ram, air 1979 punj and har 76, wherein. it was held that where the trial court has only rejected the application for the issurance of a commission of the ground that the issue could be proved by producing the relevant record and that demarcation was not necessary, it was clear that the court did not decide.....
Judgment:

1. This revision petition is directed against the 'order of the trial Court whereby the application filed on behalf of the,defendant-petitioner for sending the receipt, Exhibit P. 1, to a third handwriting expert has been dismissed by the trial Court.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the revision petition is not maintainable in view ot the provisions of Section 115, of Civil P: C. (hereinafter called the Code), as the order passed, by the trial Court does not amount to a 'Case decided'. In support of this contention. reliance was placed on Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram, AIR 1979 Punj and Har 76, wherein. it was held that where the trial Court has only rejected the application for the issurance of a commission of the ground that the issue could be proved by producing the relevant record and that demarcation was not necessary, it was clear that the Court did not decide any issue, nor did it adjudicate for the purposes of the suit some right no obligation of the parties in controversy. As such it was not a case decided within the meaning of the Explanation to section 115 of the Code, and the order was not revisable. Similarly, in the present case, in declining the application of the defendant for sending the receipt. Exhibit P. 1, to a third handwriting expert, the trial Court has not derided any right for obligation of the party, in controversy.

3. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs as not maintainable. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear in the trial Court on Nov., 17, 1983.

4. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //