MAJOR S. S. KHANNA versus BRIG. F.J. DILLON

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 409 · Decided: 14-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1 
-
' 
-
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
409 
sought for must be granted. 
We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of 
labour court and grant the application of the appellant-
bank dated December 27, 1961 and approve the proposed 
action. In the circumstances we pass no order as to costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
MAJOR S. S. KHANNA 
ti. 
BRIG. F.J. DILLON 
(A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Civil Pracedure-Revisional jurisdiction 
of High 
Court-
Meaning of "case" in s • . 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure--
Separate trial of issues of law and issues of fact-Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), s. 115, O. 14, r. 2. 
The appellant and the respondent entered into a partnership 
to do business as Contruction Engineers but in February 1956 they 
agreed to dissolve it. 
It was agreed that the respondent was to 
take over all the assets and liabilities of the partnership and keep 
the appellant indemnified from all liability. 
Later on, a suit was 
filed by the appellant for dissolution of partnership and rendition 
of accounts. 
That suit ended in a compromise which provided 
that all realisations of the old partnership would be converted into 
cash and placed in joint account in the name of the two partners 
before being paid towards the liabilities of the partnership. 
The respondent filed two suits against the appellant for re-
covery of certain amounts on the allegation that the appellant had 
taken that amount as loan. The defence of the appellant was that 
as the money was still in the joint flame of the two partners and 
he had taken the money from the loint account, suits between 
the two partners were not maintainable. 
In trying preliminary issues raised in the suits the trial Judge 
held that the suits were not maintainable, but instead of dismissing 
the suits there and then, he set them down for a future date. 
Against the :findings of the trial Judge, revision petitions were 
filed in the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Pm-
OO<lure. The High Court set aside the orders passed by the Trial 
Judge and held that the suits could not be held as not maintain-
able. The appellant appealed by special leave. 
The appellant challenged the order of the High Court on 
the ground that the order of the trial Judge did not amount to 
2 7-2 S. C. lnd;a/64 
1963 
State Bank 
of Bikaner 
v. 
Balai Chander 
Sen 
1963 
August 14 
1963 
Major 
S. S. Khanna 
v. 
Brig. 
F. /. Dillon 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
a case which has been decided" within the meaning of s. 115 of 
Code of Civil Procedure, that the decrees which may be passed 
in the suits being subject to appeal to the High Court, the power 
of the High Court was by the express terms of s. 115 excluded, 
and that the orders of the trial Judge did not fall within any ot 
the three clauses (a), (b) and (c) of s. 115. 
Rejecting the con-
tentions of the appellant, 
Held :The High Court was right in setting aside the order 
passed by the trial Judge and in holding that without investigation 
as to the respective claims made by the parties by their pleadings 
on the matters in dispute, the suits could not be held as not 
maintainable. 
The. decision of the trial Judge affected the rights 
and obligations of the parties directly. 
It was the decision on 
an issue relating to the jurisdiction -of the court to entertain the 
suit filed by the respondent. The decision attracted cl. (c) of s. ll5 
of the Code of Civil Procedure. · 
Per Sarkar and Shah, J /.-The expression "case" is a word of 
comprehensive import. 
It includes 
civ~l proceedings other 
than 
suits and is not restricted by anything contained in s. 115 to the 
entirety of the proceedings in a.· civil': .court. 
To interpret the ex-
pression "case" as an entire· proce'~ding only and not a part of 
the proceeding would be to impose 
~n unwa.rranted restriction 
on the exercise of fX>Wers of superintendence and may result ·rn 
certain cases in denying relief to the aggrieved litigant \vhere it 
is most needed and may result in· the perpetration of gross in-
justice. 
. 
The High Court is not obligCd to exercise its jurisdiction 
when a case is decided by a subordinate court and the conditions 
in els. (a), ( b) or ( c) of s. 115 are satisfied. 
Exercise of the 
jurisdiction is discretionary and the J:Iigh Court is not bound to 
interfere merely because the conditions are satisfied. 
The int~r
locutory character of the order, existence of another remedy to 
the aggr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.