https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184871 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. en-us Wed, 14 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2016 18:26:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184871 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184871