Revisional jurisdiction under section 115 CPC cannot turn an interlocutory cross-examination ruling into res judicata or a decided case.

In revision under section 115 CPC, a High Court cannot convert an interlocutory ruling on a cross-examination objection into a finding on res judicata or the legal character of an earlier consent decree, because revisional power extends only to jurisdictional error or material irregularity in a matter actually decided by the subordinate court. A consent decree, being only a recorded compromise, does not by itself operate as res judicata without adjudication. An order is a "case decided" only when it determines a right or obligation in controversy; permitting a question in cross-examination does not do so. The High Court's interference was set aside as beyond section 115.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court could treat an interlocutory order allowing a question in cross-examination as a decision on res judicata and record a finding that the earlier consent decree created a lease. (ii) Whether every order passed in the course of a suit amounts to a "case decided" for the purpose of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether, in a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court could treat an interlocutory order allowing a question in cross-examination as a decision on res judicata and record a finding that the earlier consent decree created a lease.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 115 is attracted only when a subordinate court has decided a case and has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The trial court had only overruled an objection to a question in cross-examination and had not decided the issue of res judicata or the true legal character of the transaction. The High Court therefore went beyond the limited revisional jurisdiction when it recorded a substantive finding that the consent decree operated as res judicata and that the earlier document created a lease. A consent decree is only the record of a contract with the court's seal and does not, by itself, operate as res judicata in the absence of adjudication.

Conclusion: The High Court was not competent in revision to decide the issue of res judicata or to conclude that the consent decree created a lease.

Issue (ii): Whether every order passed in the course of a suit amounts to a "case decided" for the purpose of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The expression "case" in section 115 is wide and may include part of a proceeding, but it does not cover every order made during the progress of a suit. An order is a "case decided" only if the court adjudicates, for the purposes of the suit, some right or obligation in controversy. An order merely permitting a question to be put to a witness does not finally determine any right or obligation of the parties.

Conclusion: The interlocutory order permitting the question in cross-examination was not a "case decided" within section 115.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit; the High Court's interference was held to be beyond the scope of section 115.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot finally determine issues that the subordinate court has not adjudicated, and only orders that decide a right or obligation in controversy amount to a "case decided".

---