TMI Blog1931 (8) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on with these transactions certain obligations were incurred which formed the subject of two suits, one in Bellary brought by the present defendants against the present plaintiff , and one in Dharwar by the plaintiff against the present defendants, the parties being same in the two suits. The Bellary suit went in appeal to the Madras High Court, and pending hearing of the appeal, the hearing of the Dharwar suit was stayed. Ultimately the Madras High Court ordered the suit to be dismissed on the ground that the contract of partnership, on which the plaintiffs in that case sued, was illegal. The decision is in Pannaji Devichand v. Senaji Kapurehand (1926) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 175. Against this, there was an appeal to the Privy Council and the Privy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity on the point So far as the question as to the finding that a suit is not barred by res judicata being subject to revision or not is concerned, we have two decisions of this Court one in Sari Bhikaji v Naro Vishvanath (1885) I.L.R. 9 Bom. 432 and the other in Amritrav Krishna Deshpande v. Balkrishna Ganesh Amrapurlcar (1887) I.L.R. 11 Bom. 488. In Hari Bhikaji v. Naro Vishvanath the question was practically the same as in the present case because it was held that the subject-matter of the suit was not res judicata. As no second appeal lay to this Court, the suit having been of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes, a revision application was made and it was held that a wrong decision on a question of res judicata is not a sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4 Bom. L.R. 267, Chimanbhai v. Keshavlal (1823) I.L.R. 47 Bom. 721, s.c. 25 Bom. L.R. 443, Lal-Chand-Mangal Sen v. Behari Lal-Mehr Chand (1924) I.L.R. 5 Lab. 288, F.B., Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bahsh Singh (1884) L.R. 11 I.A. 237, Balahrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar (1917) L.R. 44 I.A. 261, s.c. 19 Bom. L.R. 715, Rudra Prasad Pande v. Mathura Prasad Pande (1925) I.L.R. 47 All. 916, and Buddhu Lal v. Mewa Ram (1921) I.L.R. 43 All. 564, F.B., which is exactly on the point, and it was held that the finding on an issue is not covered by Section 115. So also in Isa Adam v. Bai Mariam (1926) 29 Bom. L.R. 564 it was held that the High Court will not interfere, under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, with an interlocutory order made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel further relied on C. Ross Alston v. Pitambar Das (1903) I.L.R. 25 All. 509, 524 and Bombay Steam Navigation Go. v. Vasudev (1937) 29 Bom. L.R. 1551,--this last is also stated to be a case of a special character--but all these cases proceeded to their determination and there had been a final decision as between the parties. 7. The overwhelming balance of authority is in support of the view that a finding on an interlocutory matter followed by an order is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 and that the High Court will not interfere in a case where the party aggrieved has another remedy open to him by way of appeal. In the present case, supposing the ultimate decision of the case to be in favour of the plaintiff, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
