https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297003 A trial court note excluding a claim for interest did not amount to a rejection of the plaint in part, because the Civil Procedure Code contains no provision for partial rejection of a plaint. The exclusion nevertheless finally determined the interest claim for revision purposes and was not a mere interlocutory direction. The trial court acted with material irregularity and without jurisdiction in purporting to exclude the claim by note. The order was therefore not appealable as a partial rejection of the plaint, but it was revisable under Section 115 CPC as a case decided, and the matter was remitted for decision on the merits. en-us Tue, 07 Jul 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Aug 2021 12:53:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297003 A trial court note excluding a claim for interest did not amount to a rejection of the plaint in part, because the Civil Procedure Code contains no provision for partial rejection of a plaint. The exclusion nevertheless finally determined the interest claim for revision purposes and was not a mere interlocutory direction. The trial court acted with material irregularity and without jurisdiction in purporting to exclude the claim by note. The order was therefore not appealable as a partial rejection of the plaint, but it was revisable under Section 115 CPC as a case decided, and the matter was remitted for decision on the merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Jul 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297003