1963 (8) TMI 51 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Maintainability of the suit filed by one partner against another partner of a dissolved firm.
3. Interpretation of the term "case which has been decided" under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Determination of whether the High Court can interfere with interlocutory orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The appellant raised three grounds: (i) the order did not amount to "a case which has been decided" within the meaning of Section 115 CPC, (ii) the decree which may be passed in the suit being subject to appeal to the High Court excluded the High Court's power under Section 115, and (iii) the order did not fall within any of the three clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 115.

The Supreme Court held that Section 115 consists of two parts: the first prescribes the conditions in which the jurisdiction of the High Court arises, and the second sets out the circumstances in which the jurisdiction may be exercised. The Court noted that the expression "case" is not restricted to a litigation in the nature of a suit in a Civil Court and includes a proceeding in a Civil Court in which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked for the determination of some claim or right legally enforceable. The Court emphasized that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and visitorial, aimed at maintaining effective control over subordinate courts.

2. Maintainability of the suit filed by one partner against another partner of a dissolved firm:

The trial judge had held that the suit filed by Dillon for recovery of amounts advanced to Khanna was not maintainable, as it was by a partner against another partner of a dissolved firm in the process of winding up. The High Court set aside this order, directing that the suit be heard and disposed of according to the law.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's view that the suit was for recovery of loans advanced from the joint account, not for contribution between partners. The Court noted that the trial judge's decision affected the rights and obligations of the parties directly and was a decision on an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit filed by Dillon.

3. Interpretation of the term "case which has been decided" under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

The Supreme Court addressed the conflicting opinions in various High Courts regarding whether an interlocutory order amounts to a "case which has been decided." The Court held that the expression "case" includes a part of a case and that the High Court has the power to rectify an order of a subordinate court at any stage of a suit or proceeding, even if there is another remedy open to the aggrieved party.

The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction to issue writs and the supervisory jurisdiction are not subject to the restriction of interpreting "case" as an entire proceeding only. The Court found that the Subordinate Judge's interlocutory order directly affected Dillon's right to a decree for recovery of the loan and, therefore, must be regarded as a "case which has been decided."

4. Determination of whether the High Court can interfere with interlocutory orders:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is not restricted to cases where no appeal lies from the final order. The Court noted that the High Court may exercise its revisional jurisdiction irrespective of whether an appeal lies from the ultimate decree or order passed in the suit. The Court rejected the view that the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to those cases where no appeal would reach the High Court from the final order passed in the proceeding.

The Court concluded that the trial judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by deciding the maintainability of the suit without investigating the respective claims made by the parties. The High Court was right in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court and holding that the suit could not be held not maintainable without a proper investigation.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the trial judge's order and directing that the suit be heard and disposed of according to the law. The Court emphasized the importance of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC to rectify errors committed by subordinate courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction.