Revisional jurisdiction under CPC can reach interlocutory orders on maintainability where disputed facts require trial.

Section 115 CPC was treated as wide enough to cover a revisional challenge to an interlocutory order that directly affected the parties' rights, because a "case decided" includes such determinations. Revision remained available where the order was otherwise not appealable and involved jurisdictional error or material irregularity, even if a final appeal might later lie. The trial court wrongly treated maintainability as a preliminary issue, since the objection depended on disputed facts and law, including the source and ownership of funds and the nature of the alleged advances. Those factual disputes required trial, and deciding them on pleadings alone was held to be illegal and materially irregular.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against an interlocutory order deciding maintainability; and whether the trial court was justified in treating the maintainability objection as a preliminary issue and non-suiting the plaintiff without trial of disputed facts.

Analysis: The expression "case decided" in Section 115 was held to be of wide import and to include a decision on a part of the proceeding that directly affects the rights of the parties. The revisional power was described as supervisory in character, intended to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It was further held that the existence of a possible appeal from the final decree does not, by itself, exclude revision against an order which is otherwise not appealable and which involves jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The trial court's determination that the suit was not maintainable turned on disputed questions of fact as well as law, including the source and ownership of the funds and the nature of the alleged advances. Such issues could not properly be decided as a preliminary issue on pleadings alone. By deciding the maintainability objection without trial of the factual disputes, the trial court acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court rightly interfered in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the trial court's preliminary order could not be sustained.

---