(1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Shortly put, the facts are as follows :-
The suit land originally belonged to Durga Dass who mortgaged the same to Sunder Dass and Udhey Ram. The appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Sunder Dass and Udhey Ram. When it came to the notice of the appellants that on the death of Durga Dass, defendant/respondent No. 1, Dharam Dev got his name mutated in the revenue record, the present suit was filed for declaration of joint ownership of the land of the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on the ground that neither Durga Dass nor his legal heirs could get the suit land redeemed within a statutory period and also for permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from alienating the suit land. In the said suit an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint was filed. It was pleaded that from a subsequent civil suit filed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellants, it came to the knowledge of the appellants that the suit land was sold by Durga Dass to Sunder Dass and Udhey Ram adjusting the mortgage amount and later on a pre-emption suit filed by Amar Nath, son of Kamal Krishna and another, which was decided in the year 1943 and it was decreed that the plaintiffs in that suit on payment of certain amount, within the time specified by the Court, to Sunder Dass and Udhey Ram, the suit would stand decreed and in case of non payment, suit would stand dismissed. The present respondent No. 1 is the son of Amar Nath. It was stated in the said application that as the amount directed by the Court was not paid there was no decree for pre emption and the suit stood dismissed and accordingly, prayer was made for amendment of the plaint. The trial Court allowed the application which was set aside by the High Court by the impugned order on the ground that the appellants want to attack a decree passed in 1943 in the present suit which was filed in the year 1999 and, therefore, it is barred by limitation.
(2.)The short question for determination is whether the impugned order was revisable by the High Court by exercising powers under Section 115, Cr.P.C. The said section runs 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 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;
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 proceeding, 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 the section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.
Explanation. - In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided "includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding."
(3.)The proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) with explanation was added by the amending Act of 1976. By this amendment the power of the High Court was curtailed, the intention of the legislature being that High Court should not interfere with each and every interlocutory order passed by the trial Court so that the trial of a suit could proceed speedily and that only the interlocutory order coming under clause (a) or (b) of the proviso would be entertained by the High Court .