Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC extends to interlocutory orders that wrongly prevent a party from testing documentary evidence.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC can extend to interlocutory orders where the subordinate court acts with material irregularity and the party's defence is materially prejudiced. A litigant contesting liability is entitled to test documentary evidence through cross-examination and, where appropriate, handwriting expert examination. A mere statement of no objection to exhibition of documents is not a clear admission of their contents or genuineness. On that basis, the refusal to permit cross-examination on vouchers and expert inspection rested on an unsustainable assumption of admission and deprived the defence of a fair opportunity to meet the evidence, so the Bombay HC upheld interference and set aside the orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court could interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure with interlocutory orders rejecting permission to cross-examine witnesses on vouchers and to obtain handwriting expert inspection of those documents, and whether the refusal amounted to material irregularity affecting the defence.

Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 extends to cases where the subordinate court, while acting within jurisdiction, acts illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of that jurisdiction, including at interlocutory stages where rights of parties are materially affected. A party contesting liability is entitled to challenge documentary evidence and to test its genuineness and contents by cross-examination and, where appropriate, expert examination. A mere statement of no objection to exhibition of documents is not a clear and categorical admission of their contents or genuineness. The rejection of the applications was based on an unsustainable assumption of admission and deprived the defence of a fair opportunity to meet material evidence.

Conclusion: The revisional court had jurisdiction to interfere, and the orders refusing cross-examination and handwriting expert inspection were vitiated by material irregularity and were rightly set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a subordinate court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, wrongly treats a non-committal procedural statement as an admission and thereby prevents a party from challenging material documentary evidence, the resulting prejudice constitutes material irregularity justifying interference in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---