Prem Narain vs Sanjay Purwar and others

In Original Suit No. 15 of 1981, Sanjay Purwar v. Shiv Shanker Lal and others, pending in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, the revisionist before this Court figures as defendant No. 3. He moved an application 586-C seeking permission to produce expert''s evidence to prove that paper No. 546-A was in the handwriting of co-defendant No. 1, Shiv Shanker Lal. Along, with this he also moved application 595-C for summoning the co-defendant No. 1 to give his writing before the court for the purpose of examination thereof by an expert. These two applications of the defendant-revisionist have been rejected by means of the order dt. 12th Dec. 1991 which is under challenge in the instant revision.

The Court had heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-revisionist, at length and in detail, and is clearly of the opinion that it will be wrong to interfere with the impugned order for the following reasons.

Firstly, the impugned order does not amount to a case which has been decided. Unless an order amounts'' to a case decided the provisions of S. 115 of the Civil P.C. 1908, hereinafter called the ''Code'' cannot be invoked.

The second reason for declining to interfere with the impugned order is that second proviso to S. 115 of the Code, as amended by the State of Uttar Pradesh, mandates that High Court or district Court, as the case may be, shall not vary or reverse any order made in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings. Indisputably, if the impugned order is varied or reversed, it would not finally dispose of the suit or any other proceedings. The said provisions also ordains against interference unless the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. In the instant case, as already stated earlier, the impugned order does not affect any right of the defendant-revisionist quo the plaintiff in the suit resulting in failure of justice.

All told, the impugned order is perfectly valid and in passing thereof the court below did not act in exercise of its jurisdiction with any such illegality or material irregularity which may warrant interference by this Court under S. 115 of the Code. The revision lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.