Skip to content


Nand Kishore Vs. Kishan Chand and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 8 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1977HP68
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 115
AppellantNand Kishore
RespondentKishan Chand and ors.
Appellant Advocate Kailash Chand, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Yogindar Pal, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredShah Prabhudas Ishwardas v. Shah Bhogilal Nathatol
Excerpt:
- .....directed against an order of the trial court admitting a document on the record.2. at the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has raised the objection that the order of the trial court does not constitute a case decided. i am entirely in agreement. the trial court has merely held that the document, according to the construction placed on it, is not a deed of partition and therefore does not require registration under section 17 of the indian registration act. in coming to this finding, it has disposed of only one issue. a perusal of the issues, of which there are as many as ten, indicates that the document has been challenged on several other grounds, each one of which, if successful, is sufficient to destroy it as a basis of the suit. the entire argument of learned counsel for.....
Judgment:

R.S. Pathak, C.J.

1. This defendant's revision petition is directed against an order of the trial court admitting a document on the record.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has raised the objection that the order of the trial court does not constitute a case decided. I am entirely in agreement. The trial Court has merely held that the document, according to the construction placed on it, is not a deed of partition and therefore does not require registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. In coming to this finding, it has disposed of only one issue. A perusal of the issues, of which there are as many as ten, indicates that the document has been challenged on several other grounds, each one of which, if successful, is sufficient to destroy it as a basis of the suit. The entire argument of learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the document is central to the decision of the suit and that by the impugned order the principal defence set up by the petitioner has been defeated. To my mind, the finding of the trial court incorporated in the impugned order does not preclude the trial court from deciding the issues incorporating the other challenges directed against the document in question, andtherefore it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner has been put to an end by the impugned order. Reference was made by learned counsel to Shah Prabhudas Ishwardas v. Shah Bhogilal Nathatol, AIR 1968 Guj 236 but there the suit had been brought on the foot of a promissory note and the trial court had excluded the promissory note from the record on the ground that it was inadequately stamped. In that case, the result of the impugned order was that the entire case of the plaintiff fell to the ground. In my opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot .be said that the impugned order of the trial court constitutes a 'case decided'' within the meaning of Section 115 oi the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The revision fails, and is dismissed with costs.


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