BALDEVDAS SHIVLAL & ANR. versus FILMISTAN DISTRIBUTORS (INDIA) (P) LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 29-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BALDEVDAS SHIVLAL & ANR. 
v. 
FILMISTAN DISTRIBUTORS (INDIA) (P) LTD. & ORS. 
April 29, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ss. 1, 115-Consent decree whether· 
operates as res judicatc.-Trial Court disallowing objection 
to 
certain 
questions in cross-examination--Order disallowing question is not a 'case· 
decided' ·within meaning of s. 115-High Court's jurisdiction in revision. 
R and F who held a cinema building in Ahmedabad on lease entered 
on November 27, 1954 into an agreement with respondent no. 1 giving 
the latter a right to exhibit cinematograph films in the said building. Later· 
respondent no. 1 filed suit No. 149 of 1960 to assert his .right to exhibit 
films in the building. 
The suit resulted in a comp'romise decree. 
In 
pursuance of the compromise a further agreement dated December 1, 
1960 was executed betweeu the parties. However in 1963 respondent no. 
1 again filed a suit claiming as a sub-lessee or as lessee a right to exhibit 
films in the said building and praying that the defendants be restrained 
from interfering with that right. 
The suit was filed under s. 28 of the 
Bombay Rents, }Jotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 in the 
Court of Small Causes. In this suit respondent no. 1 asked the court to 
try additional issues Nos. 11, 12 and 13 as preliminary issues. 
In issue 
no. 11 the question raised was whether the consent decree in the earlier 
suit operated aa res judicata so that R & F could not question that the 
agreements betw.aen them and respondent no. 1 constituted a lease. 
Js3ue 
no. 12 raised the question whether in view of the consent decree R & F 
were estopped from leading evidence and asking questions in cross-exami· 
nation to show that the said agreement~ did not constitute a lease. Issue 
No. 13 raised the question whether s. 92 of the Indian Evidence Act 
debarred R & F from leading evidence to the effect that the documents 
in question did not constitute a lease. 
The Trial CoUrt refused to try 
these as preliminary issues and its order was upheld by the High Court. 
At the hearing of the case when the cc>unsel for the defendants sought to 
ask a witness for ~pondent No. 1 whether the agreement dated N ovcm-
ber 27, 1954. was a commercial transaction and not a lease respondent 
No. 1 objected to the question. 
The objection was disallowed by the 
trial rourt. In revision under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the 
High Court did' not interfere with the triai court's order in respect of 
issues Nos. 12 and 13. In respect of issue No. 11, the High Court held 
that the agteement dated November 27, 1954 must in view of the consent 
decree in suit No. )49 of 1960 be held to be a lease, and that the consent 
decree created a bar of res judicata in respect of the issue whether the 
said aJ:reement created a lease. The defendants-appellants appealed to this. 
Court. 
HELD : (i) The High Court had no jurisdiction to record any finding 
on the issue of res judicata in a revision application :filec! against an order 
refusing to uphold an objection to certain question asked to a witness under 
examination. The Court erred in proceeding to decide matters on which 
no decision was till then recorded by the trial court and which could 
not be decided by the High Court until the parties had opportunity of 
leading evidence thereon. [ 441 Fl 
.(36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970) l S.C.R 
(Ii) By ordering that a question may pr"P"rly be put to a witness who 
A 
wu exammed, no case was decided by the Trial Court within the meaning 
of s. 11 S of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
The expression 'case' is not 
limited ia its impoit to the entirety of the matt.er in dispute in a proceed-
ing. 
Such an interpretation may result in certain cases in denying relief 
to the aggrieved litigant where it is most needed. 
But equally, it is not 
every order of the court in the course of a suit that amounts to a case 
decided. 
A case may be said to be decided onJy if the court adjudicates, 
B 
for the purpose of the suit, some right or obligation of the parties in 
controversy. 
[441H-442C] 
MGior S. S. Khllllna v. Brig. F. /, Dillon, 
( 1964) 4 
S.C.R. 409, 
referred to. 
(iii) A consent decree, according to the decisions of this Court, docs 
not operate as res judicata.. because a consent decree is merely tbe record 
of a contract between the panics to a suit, to \\-hich is superadded the 
C· 
seal of the court. A matlcr in c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.