The National Security Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Balmokand Opposite-Party.

Ghulam Hasan, J.:— This revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order of the Civil Judge of Lucknow holding that he had jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was maintainable against the defendant under the Displaced Persons (Institution of Suits) Act, No. XLVII of 1948. It appears that the above two questions were treated as preliminary issues and the finding was given in favour of the plaintiff. It is obvious that these two issues embody only some of the questions arising in the case and it must, therefore, be held that the decision of these two issues, however vital it may be from the point of view of the defendant, cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are two Full Bench decisions to which it will be necessary to refer. The first is a decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Buddhu Lal v. Mewa Ram I.L.R 43 All. 564. in which it was held that no revision lies against a decision on the question of jurisdiction where the Court has held that it had jurisdiction.

2. It was observed that no case had been decided by the trial Court within the meaning of Section 115 and all that was decided was one out of several issues in the suit and the defendants had their remedy by way of appeal from the decree in suit if it should be decided against them. The other case is the decision of the late Chief Court of Avadh in Paras Nath v. Ran Bahadur 1935 O.W.N 1158. where the meaning of the word “case” used in Section 115 was exhaustively discussed and it was held that where the trial Court had directed the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court-fee, the order was interlocutory order in the suit and no revision lay on the ground that no case had been decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the mere decision of a preliminary point regarding court-fee. The principle of these decisions has been followed in several other decision's of the Avadh Chief Court as well as in the Allahabad High Court. It would be sufficient to refer to:—

3. Prithivi Nath v. Bhagirath Tandon 1941 O.W.N 1350., Bhagley v. Bala Din 1942 O.W.N 313., District Board, Bahraich v. Ramendra Prasad Singh 1944 O.W.N 174., Ghani v. Mustafa Khan 1948 O.W.N 133., Manna Lal v. Ram Gopal A.I.R 1950 All. 205. and two unreported Bench decisions in Mazhar Jameel v. Lala Babu Ram Section 115 Application No. 29 of 1948. dated March 2, 1948 and the British India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Parmanand Yadav Section 115 Application No. 24 of 1949. dated November 21, 1949. We hold, therefore, that the present revision application is not competent.

4. We accordingly dismiss the application as being not maintainable, with costs to the opposite-party.

5. Application dismissed.