Chandra Prakash, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated January 25, 1972 of Shri U.C. Dikshit, II Additional Civil Judge, Agra, allowing ad ditional evidence to be taken on behalf of the defendants opposite parties. The facts leading to this application are not disputed and may be narrated as follows. The plaintiffs applicants filed a suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the plot _of which the plaintiffs claimed to be the Bhumidhars and for the recovery of Ks. 500 as price of the crops alleged to have been cut and removed by the defendants. The defendants resisted the claim on various grounds. After taking evidence of the parties the Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim was correct and accordingly a dec ree was passed in their favour.
(2.) AGAINST that decree the defendants filed an appeal in the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge, Agra. During the course of the ap peal the defendants moved an application 34-C for filing some docu ments in order to point out certain mistakes that have crept in the documents filed by them before. After hearing the parties the Court below allowed the application 34-C and allowed the defendants to file additional evidence in the case. Against the above order the plaintiffs applicants have come up in revision before me, and have questioned the legality or validity of the order passed by the Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by the defendants oppo site parties that the order of the Court below does not amount to a case decided and as such it is not revisable under Section 115, C.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case I have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection taken by the opposite parties must prevail. Section 115, C.P.C. is as follows:- "The High Court or District Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court or District 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 or District Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: Provided that nothing in this section shall be constrused to em power the District Court to call for the record of any case arising out of an original suit of the value of twenty thousand rupees or above."
(3.) THE contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties that by allow ing additional evidence to the defendants opposite parties the Court below has not decided any case either the whole of it or any part of it and as such no revision lies. The learned counsel for the opposite parties drew my attention to the case in Harvenchal Kunwar v. Kanhai Lal 4 Indian Cases 878 in which it has held as follows: "No application for revision lies against an interlocutory order which does not determine the case but which is only made with the object of collecting materials upon which the case is to be determined hereafter. The Word 'case' in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, must ordinarily mean the whole case. But where there are in dependent proceedings arising out of a case, such as a proceeding "to restore a case dismissed in default, or to set aside an ex parte decree, for which the Legislature has provided an independent remedy or a different procedure, such proceeding may by a case within the meaning of this section. Any orders on matters arising incidentally in the course of the hearing of such proceeding, the object of which is to bring on the record or to exclude from it, materials upon which its decision is to be based, are not by themselves decisions in a case which can be revised until the case is finally concluded. An order by the appellate Court calling upon the Court below to record and send up certain evidence is not the decision of a case within the meaning of Section 115 and is, consequently, not open to revision." ;