Maheshwari Oil Mill v. Girjanath Durga Saran

Satish Chandra, C.J:— 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 raise a preliminary objection that the impugned order does not amount to case decided within the meaning of Section 115 CPC. He relies on Y. Venkateswara Rao v. K. Nagamma, AIR 1972 Mysore 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.

3. The order does not amount to case decided. It is analogous to over-ruling or sustaining an objection to a question put to a witness. These are purely interlocutory orders which are not revisable.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant relies upon Shamarao v. Moti Ram, AIR 1934 Nagpur 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, CPC.

5. This revision is accordingly dismissed with costs.

K.J.C

6. Revision dismissed.