MAHESHWARI OIL MILL Vs. GIRJANATH DURGA SARAN
LAWS(ALL)-1980-2-12
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 26,1980

MAHESHWARI OIL MILL Appellant
VERSUS
GIRJANATH DURGA SARAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

Y VENKATESWARA RAO VS. K NAGAMMA [REFERRED TO]
SHAMRAO VS. MOTIRAM [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BASHESHAR PICTURES VS. PREM PARIKASH [LAWS(DLH)-1991-2-80] [REFERRED]
EXPORTS UNLIMITED VS. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1996-3-2] [REFERRED ASRUMATI DEVI AIR 1953 SC 198)]
RAMESH CHANDRA SAHU VS. SUBHASH CHANDRA [LAWS(ALL)-1988-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. DALMIA INSTITUTE OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH [LAWS(ORI)-1985-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
G NANCHIL KUMARAN VS. GOVINDASAMY REDDIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1999-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
CHOUTH MAL VS. FAZAL HUSSAIN [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
SULTAN LEATHER FINISHERS P LTD VS. A D J [LAWS(ALL)-2005-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
RATAN LAL VS. KAMLA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-4-1] [DISTINGUESED]
SAFAT HUSAIN VS. SARVA HIT KARINI SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-77] [REFERRED TO]
SAFAT HUSAIN @ CHHANGOO VS. SARVA HIT KARINI SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-312] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUR PATHAK VS. ARUN KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-78] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH MISHRA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.)This revision is directed against an order refusing to give leave to the defendant to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiff,
(2.)Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite-party raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order does not amount to case decided within the meaning of Section 115 C. P. C. He relies on Y. Venkateswara Rao v. K. Nagamma AIR 1972 Mys 254. There, after consideration of the Supreme Court decisions, the Court held that when the Court exercise its judicial discretion in granting or refusing to grant leave to deliver interrogatories, it cannot be said to be an adjudication of some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. The order does not amount to case decided. It is analogous to overruling or sustaining an objection to a question put to a witness. These are purely interlocutory orders which are not revisable.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the applicant relies upon Shamrao v. Moti Ram AIR 1934 Nag 181. In that case, there is a passing observation that such an order amounts to case decided. No reasons have been given. I am unable to agree with it, In my opinion, an order refusing to grant leave to a party to deliver interrogatories is not a case decided within meaning of Section 115, C. P. C.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.