Full Judgment
Janarthanam, J.
1. Pudukottai Municipality owns a shandy within its limits. The right to collect daily shandy collection for the period from 1.7.1990 to 31.3.1991 has been auctioned. One Murugesan was the highest bidder for Rs. 1,62,045. He made a deposit of Rs. 40,512. The auction was confirmed in his favour by the Municipality on 30.6.1990. He has to pay the balance bid amount at Rs. 20,255 per mensem on or before the 5th of every month, in default to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum. If he commits any default in payment of the bid amount his auction is liable to be cancelled. Due to rain and poor collection he says that he incurred a loss to the tune of Rs. 10,000 per month. Therefore he did not pay any amount. Apprehending that the licence to collect daily shandy collection granted to him will be cancelled by the Municipality, he, as plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 67 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Pudukottai against the Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality as defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in any manner cancelling or annulling the licence granted to him or from collecting the daily shandy collection till 31.3.1991. He also filed I.A. No. 126 of 1991 praying for the relief of temporary injunction till the disposal of the said suit.
2. Learned District Munsif heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff and ordered notice and ad-interim injunction till 25.1.1991 on 18.1.1991. The plaintiff was also directed to comply with Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C., and file an affidavit on 21.1.1991 failing which the said order will stand cancelled. On 25.1.1991, the defendant filed counter and the I.A. was posted to 31.1.1991 for enquiry besides ordering the status quo to be maintained till than. On 31.1.1991, the I.A. was adjourned to 7.2.1991 by directing extension of the previous order till then, and for enquiry. However, on 7.2.1991, learned District Munsif addressed a letter to the District Judge for the transfer of the case to the file of some other Court for certain obvious personal embarrassment, adjourning the case to 27.2.1991 awaiting necessary orders. In so doing, no order was passed extending the order of interim injunction or the maintenance of the status quo till then. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the present action, as an aggrieved person, under Section 115, C.P.C., as no order was passed extending either interim injunction or maintenance of the status quo.
3. Under the amended provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only if the order under revision amounts to 'a case decided'. The Clauses (a) to (d) of the said section set out the circumstances in which the jurisdiction is to be exercised. The two parts of the section are not only separate and distinct, but have entirely different ambit and role. The first part prescribed the basic conditions for invoking the revisional jurisdiction, while the second part enumerates the circumstances in which the jurisdiction may be exercised. Although for invoking the revisional jurisdiction the condition prescribed in the first part of the section would suffice, yet for exercising the jurisdiction, in addition to the satisfaction of the condition laid in part first, the attraction of any one or more of Clauses (a) to (d) is also required.
4. The term 'case decided' is not confined to the decision of the case as a whole, but would also include part of a case, which decides a substantial question in controversy between the parties. The touchstone, therefore, would be to find out if the order under revision has determined some right or claim between the parties, which is legally enforceable. If it has, it would be 'a case decided' and jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., may be invoked and not otherwise.
5. In the case on hand, it cannot be stated that any part of the controversy between the parties had been decided by not extending the order of either interim injunction or maintenance of status quo earlier granted and in this view of the matter, it goes without saying that the revision filed as such is rather incompetent and deserves outright dismissal even at the admission stage.
6. For the above reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed even at the admission stage.