Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of agreements relating to the exhibition of cinematograph films in a cinema building in Ahmedabad. R and F, who held the building on lease, entered into an agreement with the respondent company on November 27, 1954, granting it the right to exhibit films. A subsequent dispute led to the filing of suit No. 149 of 1960 by the respondent against R and F, which was ultimately compromised and resulted in a consent decree. A further agreement dated December 1, 1960, was executed in pursuance of the compromise. In 1963, the respondent filed a fresh suit in the Court of Small Causes under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, claiming a right as a sub-lessee or lessee to exhibit films and seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with that right. In this later suit, the plaintiff applied to the court to try three additional issues as preliminary issues: Issue No. 11—whether the consent decree in the earlier suit operated as res judicata; Issue No. 12—whether the defendants were estopped from leading evidence and cross-examining witnesses to show that the agreements did not create a lease; and Issue No. 13—whether Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act debarred the defendants from leading such evidence. The trial court refused to try these issues as preliminary issues. The plaintiff then moved the High Court in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the trial court’s order disallowing a question in cross-examination and refusing to try the issues as preliminary issues amounted to a ‘case decided’ within the meaning of Section 115 CPC. The Court held that an order which does not finally determine any right or liability of the parties is not a ‘case decided’ and, therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in revision. The decision of the High Court was set aside, and the trial court’s order was restored. The Court did not go into the merits of res judicata, estoppel, or the application of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, as the central issue was the jurisdictional limit of the revisional power.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Meaning of 'Case Decided' - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115 - An order by the trial court refusing to allow a certain question in cross-examination is not a 'case decided' within the purview of the section, and the High Court has no jurisdiction to revise such an order. The trial court had declined to try additional issues as preliminary issues, which included a plea of res judicata based on a consent decree. Held, that the order did not finally determine any right or obligation of the parties, and the High Court's interference in revision was without jurisdiction. B) Res Judicata - Consent Decree - Earlier suit No. 149 of 1960 resulted in a compromise decree regarding the right to exhibit films in a cinema building. The subsequent suit raised the question whether that decree operated as res judicata, preventing the defendants from challenging the nature of the agreement as a lease. C) Evidence - Estoppel and Exclusion - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 92 - The defendants sought to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses to show that the written agreements did not constitute a lease, but the plaintiff contended they were estopped by the consent decree and barred by Section 92 of the Evidence Act from leading such evidence.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order disallowing a question in cross-examination is a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, so as to confer revisional jurisdiction on the High Court; whether the consent decree in the prior suit operated as res judicata or estoppel; and whether Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act barred evidence to contradict the terms of the written agreements.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the trial court's order did not constitute a 'case decided' under Section 115 CPC, and therefore the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in revision. The High Court's order was set aside and the trial court's order restored.
Law Points
- consent decree operates as res judicata
- estoppel by consent decree
- bar under Section 92 Evidence Act
- order disallowing question in cross-examination is not a case decided
- revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115 CPC is limited
