ORDER
1. These revisions arise from the order passed by the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, rejecting the revisionist-applicant’s application for appointment of a handwriting expert as Commissioner to examine certain documents for comparison of signatures. This application was moved in the respective original suits. The Trial Court dismissed the applications taking the view that the suit is of 1991. The application had been made after completion of plaintiffs evidence and defendant also having led his evidence. He has also observed that in both the applications as well as in the affidavit, it has not at all been whispered as to which documents in particular are to be referred. The Court has also found that so far as the agreement to execute the sale deed is concerned, signature is not denied, which are contained therein. The defendant’s plea has been that plaintiff has not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It rejected it on the ground that the prayer also in application is vague and that it appears to have been made to delay and drag the legal proceedings.
2. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the revisionist-applicant that is the plaintiff has come up before this Court in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that he had to prove certain signatures on certain endorsements. The Trial Court had considered no doubt various circumstances, and opined that the application was primarily meant to delay the proceedings and after the closure of the proceedings, it also found that primarily the agreement so far as signing on agreement is concerned, there is no dispute about it. It had full jurisdiction to allow the application or to reject it. Even if for a moment it be taken that there is some error in the rejecting of the application, in case revisional jurisdiction is invoked, it is the duty of the revisionist-applicant first to satisfy all the ingredients of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. One of the ingredients necessary or conditions precedent is it has to be established that the order impugned amounts to case decided. Then further he has to show that the order is not appealable to this Court. Thirdly, he has to show that the order suffers from jurisdictional error, either refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested or usurpation of jurisdiction not vested or at least it must be shown that the Court below has acted illegally with material irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction.
4. In the present case the order which has been passed, rejecting the application cannot be said to amount to a case decided. Under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code no doubt explanation has been added, which clearly provides, the meaning of the expression “any case which has been decided”, and it reads as under:
“Explanation.–In this section, the expression “any case which has been decided” includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding”.
5. The expression order as it has been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, vide Section 2(14) of the Civil Procedure Code, reads-
“Order” means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Cotirt which is not a decree”.
6. The question regarding decision arises as to when the rights of the parties have been decided by that order, may not be that right involved in the suit, but any right even relating to the proceedings. The expression “case decided” has also been subject-matter of consideration by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Major S.S. Khanna v Brig. F.J. Dillon. In paragraph 11, their Lordships observed.-
“The expression “case” is a word of comprehensive import. It includes civil proceedings other than suits and it is not restricted by anything contained in Section 115 to the entirety of the proceedings in a Civil Court. To interpret the expression “case” as an entire proceeding only and not a part of the proceeding would be to impose an unwarranted restriction on the exercise of power of superintendence and may result in certain cases in denying relief to the aggrieved litigant where it is most needed and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice”.
7. No doubt “case” may include a part of the case. Even though the definition of the case is wider, but a reading of order which has been order merely for the progress of the proceedings may not come within the framework of a decision or an order deciding a case and may not fall within the meaning of expression “case decided”. They are only steps towards the final adjudication of the case, and only regulate the procedure, and do not affect any right or obligation of the parties. Any order has to be interpreted in that context. It does not mean – any order means – even an order not granting adjournment of the case should be taken to be a case decided. Discovery or production of documents accordingly is not a matter relating to the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy in suit and hence an order in that regard does not amount to case decided, or an application where it is moved for cross-examination of the parties, rejected or for reopening of his further evidence may not amount to case decided. Once the evidence is closed, party no doubt has a right to produce evidence, but thereafter it is the duty of the Court to see whether at this stage it is proper to deal with that application. Here in the present case, the order has been made rejecting the applicant’s application for referring the documents to the expert. Certain rider has been put with reference to Section 115 so that a party may not be allowed to delay the proceedings and drag them.
8. In the case of Baldevdas Shiulal and Another v Filmistan Distributors (India) Private Limited and Others, their Lordships of the Supreme Court taking note of their own decisions in the case of Major S.S. Khanna supra, has been pleased to observe as under:
“It may also be observed that by ordering that a question may properly to put to a witness who was being examined, no case was decided by the Trial Court. The expression “case” is not limited in its import to the entirety of the matter in dispute in an action. This Court observed in Major S.S. Khanna’s case, supra, that the expression “case” is a word of comprehensive import : it includes a civil proceeding and is not restricted by anything as contained in Section 115 of the Code to the entirety of the proceeding in a Civil Court. To interpret the expression “case” as an entire proceeding only and not a part of the proceeding imposes an unwarranted restriction on the exercise of powers of superintendence and may result in certain cases in denying relief to the aggrieved litigant where it is most needed and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice. But it was not decided in Major S.S. Khanna’s case, supra, that every order of the Court in the course of a suit amounts to a case decided. A case may be said to be decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy; every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. If we read in the light of these observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, explanation to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and definition of expression “order” under Section 2(14), it leads to the conclusion that an order by which some right or obligation of a party is decided, may be in relation to proceedings, then it may amount to a case decided.
10. Here in the present case, application, was moved for sending documents to the expert, by appointing expert’s commission, to examine the documents and to compare the signatures. The Court refused to do it. The order declining to appoint Commissioner and to ask him to examine the documents cannot be said to deciding any dispute. It does not satisfy the necessary test. The order has been passed taking the view that dialatory tactics has been used by the appellant but the order does not decide any right of obligation. In this view of the matter, it does not amount to case decided. Apart from that as regards the question of illegality or material irregularity, the written decision does not amount to acting illegally or with material irregularity, nor can it be said to be Court’s exercised jurisdiction not vested, while examining the application and determining that application as vague and it is made with the object to delay tbe proceedings, it cannot be said that the Court has committed jurisdictional error. Even if it may be said there was some error, though I do not so observe that there was any error of law. This Court in the case of C. Gangaiah v Deity Sri Shani Mahatma and Others, had opined that an order appointing handwriting expert to compare signatures cannot be interfered with under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is well-settled principle of law as laid down in Baldeudas Shivlal’s case, supra, that error of law or fact cannot be corrected under Section 115.
Thus considered in my opinion, the revision is not maintainable, but it is hereby observed that if decision goes against him in the suit it is always open to him to take that plea. Therefore, I do not express any opinion, whether there is any error or not in the order. Even if there is any error, but if he does not touch jurisdiction under Section 115 is not vague, but no doubt open to the party affected to raise that plea in the ground of appeal, as well as to take recourse under Order XLI, Rule 27.
Subject to these observations, the revision petitions are hereby dismissed, as the order does not amount to case decided.