ORDER E.K. Moidu, J. 1. The question that arises for determination in this civil revision petition filed by the 1st defendant is whether the order of the Trial Court treating the sales tax return submitted by the 1st respondent - plaintiff to the 2nd respondent Sales Tax Officer for the purpose of his sales tax assessment as a confidential document not liable to be exhibited in evidence in the suit can be revised by this court under S.115 C.P.C. S.115 says: The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears: -- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it bylaw, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. Two conditions are necessary to be fulfilled in order to attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the above section. The first condition is that there must be "a case" decided by a subordinate court and that no appeal will lie from such decision to the High Court; and the second condition is that the subordinate court must have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court cannot interfere in revision with the decision of a subordinate court unless both these conditions are fulfilled. It is therefore, necessary to consider whether these conditions have been fulfilled in the instant case. I may state that if either of these conditions is not fulfilled, the revision application would be incompetent and the objection raised by the respondents would prevail. 2. In order to ascertain the applicability of the above provision, it is necessary to state the circumstances under which the revision petition is filed. The 1st respondent laid the suit against the petitioner for recovery of certain sum of moneys being the value of coir alleged to have been sold by the former to the latter. 2. In order to ascertain the applicability of the above provision, it is necessary to state the circumstances under which the revision petition is filed. The 1st respondent laid the suit against the petitioner for recovery of certain sum of moneys being the value of coir alleged to have been sold by the former to the latter. During the trial after the evidence of the 1st respondent was closed, the 2nd respondent Sales Tax Officer, was cited and examined as a witness on behalf of the petitioner. While he was being examined, a question was put to him whether he had produced the sales tax file relating to the assessment of the sales tax payable by the 1st respondent His answer being in the affirmative he was directed to produce the file to be marked as part of the record in the case. Objection was then raised both by the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent to the effect that the sales tax file is a confidential document and, therefore, under S.54 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 it was not liable to be produced or marked in the case. On hearing the argument of either side, the Trial Court accepted the contention of the respondents and held that the sales tax file which contained the annual return and other documents could not be produced and marked as they are confidential documents within the purview of S.54 of the aforesaid Act. It is against that order the present revision petition is filed. 3. On the basis of S.115 C.P.C. it is required to be shown that there must be "a case" decided by a subordinate court. On this controversy, there had been innumerable decisions as to the scope and effect of the "case decided" which occur in S.115 C.P.C. This controversy is set at rest by a decision of the Supreme Court is Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dillon. AIR 1964 SC 497 . It is stated as follows: "The expression "case" is a word of comprehensive import: it includes civil proceedings other than suits and is not restricted by anything contained in the section to the entirety of the proceedings in a civil court. F. J. Dillon. AIR 1964 SC 497 . It is stated as follows: "The expression "case" is a word of comprehensive import: it includes civil proceedings other than suits and is not restricted by anything contained in the section to the entirety of the proceedings in a civil court. To interpret the expression "case" as an entire proceeding only and hot a part of a proceeding would be to impose a restriction upon the exercise of powers of superintendence to which the jurisdiction to issue writs, and the supervisory jurisdiction are not subject, and may result in certain cases in denying relief to an aggrieved litigant where it is most needed, and may result tin the perpetration of gross injustice. The expression "case" includes a suit, but in ascertaining the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court, there would be no warrant for equating it with a suit alone." 4. The observation shows that S.115 C.P.C. is not confined to an entire suit or proceeding or the order deciding an issue or part of a suit or proceeding. If an order decides an issue or part of a suit or proceeding, it would be a case decided within the meaning of S.115 C.P.C. It is sufficient that by an order a decision is arrived at of some right or obligation which may be in controversy between the parties in the suit or proceeding, a part of the suit or a proceeding, whether it forms the subject matter of separate issue or not to be decided and that would be a decision of a "case" as contemplated by S.115 C.P.C. In this regard, 1 may cite a decision reported in Bhachibai alias Kunverbai v. Virji Devji, AIR 1963 Gujarat 241. It was held in that decision that the admission of a document or refusal of admission of the document, could not be the subject matter of revision under S.115 C.P.C. The opinion of Raju, J. in that decision is important to be quoted as follows: "Where the Court admits a document or refuses to admit it in evidence, that matter cannot be the subject matter of revision under S.115 C. P. Code. During the course of examination of witnesses, a Court has to give various rulings on the admissibility in evidence of the questions put and answers given. During the course of examination of witnesses, a Court has to give various rulings on the admissibility in evidence of the questions put and answers given. There cannot be a revision against every decision of the Judge allowing the questions to be put or not allowing certain question to be put. When the Court allows a question to be put or refuses the question to be put, that would not amount to deciding a case, Similarly, when the Court allows a document to be admitted in evidence or the Court refuses to allow it, that does not amount to deciding a case, but it amounts to deciding a question regarding the admissibiliy of certain evidence. Therefore, when the Court decides questions under the Evidence Act, it is not deciding a case, and therefore its decision cannot be the subject matter of revision under S.115 C. P. Code." 5. The above decision is commented upon in a later decision of the same High Court reported in Prabhudas v. Coparceners, Shaw Family, AIR 1968 Gujarat 236. The document sought to be admitted in evidence in that case was a promissory note which was not adequately stamped. It was contended that it was inadmissible in evidence by reason of insufficiency of stamp affixed on it. That contention was the subject matter of an issue. The document sought to be admitted in evidence in that case was a promissory note which was not adequately stamped. It was contended that it was inadmissible in evidence by reason of insufficiency of stamp affixed on it. That contention was the subject matter of an issue. It was, therefore, held that the document being a foundation of a suit claim, the determination of the question whether the promissory note was admissible or not was a "case decided" within the purview of S.115 C.P.C. In coming to that conclusion whether the contention formed part of the suit or not, Bhagavathy, J., who spoke for the Division Bench stated as follows commenting upon the earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court in which Raju J. expressed the opinion: "Where the question of admissibility arises in regard to a document which constitutes the foundation of some right or obligation in controversy between the parties in the suit or proceeding so that the decision of the question of admissiblity would be its direct and immediate consequence, of its own force, determine such right and obligation, it would not be correct to say that the decision of the question of admissibility is merely a decision of a question under the Evidence Act: since it decides a part of the suit or proceeding by determining the right or obligation in controversy between the parties, it would amount to a decision of a 'case' within the meaning of S.115." 6. On the question as to whether the expression "case decided" in S.115 C.P.C. is not limited in its import to the entirety of the matter in dispute has to be accepted. The Supreme Court has again expressed the view in Baldevdas v. Filmistan Distributors, AIR 1970 SC 406 . At page 410 the following observation was seen: "To interpret the expression "case" as an entire proceeding only and not a part of the proceeding imposes an unwarranted restriction on the exercise of powers of superintendence and may result in certain cases in denying relief to the aggrieved litigant where it is most needed and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice. But it was not decided in Major S. S. Khanna's case, 1964 (4) SCR 409 ( AIR 1964 SC 497 ) (supra) that every order of the Court in the course of a suit amounts to a case decided. But it was not decided in Major S. S. Khanna's case, 1964 (4) SCR 409 ( AIR 1964 SC 497 ) (supra) that every order of the Court in the course of a suit amounts to a case decided. A case may be said to be decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy; every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure." On the authority of these decisions it could be stated in the case on hand that there was a "case decided" as it related to a proceeding forming part of a suit. 7. The next question is whether the second condition of S.115 C.P.C. is fulfilled in the instant case. In Abbasehai v. Gulamnabi, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1341, a passage with approval by the Supreme Court is quoted from decision reported in Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar, AIR 1917 PC 71 . The relevant passage runs as follows: "x xx xx the section (S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure) applies to jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non exercise of it, or the illegal assumption of it. The section is not directed against conclusions of law or fact in which the question of jurisdiction is not involved." 8. However it is pointed out in Pandurang v. Maruti, AIR 1966 SC 153 , that important questions relating to the consideration of the operative provisions contained in any Statute must be finally determined by the High Court under its general jurisdiction under S.115 C.P.C. in order to afford guidance to subordinate courts and to avoid confusions. But, the Supreme Court made certain conditions for the application of the directions to be made by the High Court in such cases. The Supreme Court's view is expressed as follows in the above case: "The High Court cannot while exercising its jurisdiction under S.115, correct errors of fact, however gross they may be, or even errors of law. It can only do so when the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. The Supreme Court's view is expressed as follows in the above case: "The High Court cannot while exercising its jurisdiction under S.115, correct errors of fact, however gross they may be, or even errors of law. It can only do so when the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. It is only in cases where the subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be properly involved. Points of law may arise which are related to question of jurisdiction. A plea of limitation or plea of res judicata is a plea of law which concerns the jurisdiction of the Court which tries the proceedings. A finding on these pleas in favour of the party which raises them would oust the jurisdiction of the Court. An erroneous decision on these pleas, therefore, can be said to be concerned with questions of jurisdiction falling within the purview of S.115 of the Code. But an erroneous decision on a question of law having no relation to questions of jurisdiction will not be corrected by the High Court under S.115." 9. I may at once say that the court below in the instant case did not exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or it had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested So, clauses (a) and (b) of S.115 C.P.C. did not arise for consideration. The only question is whether in the instant case the provisions of clause (c) of S.115 C.P.C. can be availed of to correct the error. This clause requires interference by the High Court when the subordinate court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It is not intended for application where the High Court finds that the subordinate court has wrongly decided a question of law in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Neither S.115 C.P.C. is intended to correct errors of law in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts. It is not intended for application where the High Court finds that the subordinate court has wrongly decided a question of law in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Neither S.115 C.P.C. is intended to correct errors of law in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts. It is only the error of law which has relation to the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity by a subordinate court the High Court can correct such error of law in revision. In AIR 1966 Gujarat 236 quoted earlier, it is held that mere error of law in the exercise of jurisdiction is not enough. But what was necessary is that the subordinate court must have acted illegally, i. e. in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity, that is by committing some error or procedure in the course of trial which is material that it may have affected the ultimate decision. Viewing the instant case in the light of the above decisions it is apparent that the decision by the Trial Court that the sales tax file is a confidential document within the provisions of S.54 of the Sales Tax Act aforesaid would not affect the decision in the case ultimately. The decision in the present case depends upon the evidence which is furnished by the 1st respondent in the suit instituted against the petitioner. Even if the revision petitioner succeeds in getting the sales tax return admitted in evidence, it would only be one piece of evidence in support of his contention against the suit claim. What the revision petitioner wanted to be produced was the sales tax return furnished by the 1st respondent for his assessment of the sales tax before the 2nd respondent, Sales Tax Officer. According to him, if that sales tax return was produced, it would show whether the 1st respondent submitted a return in Form No. 8 as required by R.10, 11 and 13 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 or in Form No. 25 as required by sub-r.14 of R.32 of the said Rules. If the Form No. 25 was produced, it would show a declaration by a purchasing dealer when goods taxable at the point of last purchase in the State were purchased or not. If the Form No. 25 was produced, it would show a declaration by a purchasing dealer when goods taxable at the point of last purchase in the State were purchased or not. The petitioner contended that if there was any sale of coir by the 1st respondent to him the transaction would find a place in either of these Forms to be submitted by the 1st respondent before the Sales Tax Officer. The production of the sales tax return would, therefore, help the petitioner only to probabilise his contention to some extent. The suit is based upon a written document alleged to have been executed by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. The conclusion to be arrived at in the suit was, therefore, based upon that document and the other evidence in the case. The sales tax return would, therefore, only help the petitioner to establish a part of his case and even if the sales tax return is produced, the non inclusion of the plaint transaction in that return would not be a conclusive circumstance to hold that the sale of coir by the 1st respondent to the petitioner was true or not. It may be said that the conclusion made by the Trial Court with regard to the admissibility of the document is not correct in view of the decision reported in Abdulla and other v. Assankutty, 1960 KLJ 1038 . But, a wrong decision is not a circumstance to hold that the order is liable to be revised within clause (c) of S.115 C.P.C. It was clearly a question within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to state whether sales tax file was admissible in evidence or not. It could not be said that by the erroneous decision of a question by the Trial Court clutched at a jurisdiction which it did not possess or refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. By arriving at that conclusion it could not also be said that the Trial Court acted in breach of any provision of law or committed any error of procedure in the course of trial which could be regarded as material. The decision will have no ultimate effect in the decision to be arrived at in the suit. It has to be conceded that the decision of the Trial Court was erroneous. The decision will have no ultimate effect in the decision to be arrived at in the suit. It has to be conceded that the decision of the Trial Court was erroneous. The error of law committed by the court was undoubtedly on a question of law. But, error of law did not have relation to and was not concerned with jurisdiction of the subordinate court and, therefore, clause (c) of S.115 C.P.C. could not be applied to the circumstances of this case. It follows that there is no merit in the revision petition. 10. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.