GOPALA IYENGAR Vs. BYLA HANUMAN THAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner is aggrieved by an order rejecting his application for amendment of me pleading. The revision petition is presented under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code ('cpc' for short).

(2.) learned counsel for the petitioner contends that because this is an inter locutory order made in the exercise of a jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the pleading, it is revisable under Section 115. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, revision under Section 50 is not maintainable in view of the decision of this court in Ankaiah v M. Veerabhadrappa, reported in 1979(1) kar. L. J. 427. In the said decision, Justice puttaswamy observed that an order which was interlocutary cannot be construed as an order falling under the said term under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and a revision petition against the said order was not maintainable. That was a matter where, in the course of cross-examination of the landlord, counsel for the tenant asked certain questions; the owner objected to those question. The objections were overruled, and therefore, the landlord challenged the said order. It was held to be not an order eligible to be revised.

(3.) in Central bank of India v Gokulchand, AIR 1967 SC 799, the Supreme Courtwas concerned with an order rejecting an application for appointment of commissioner; from any order of the rent controller, an appeal was provided to the rent control tribunal. Tribunal held, above order was not an order against which an appeal could be filed. The Supreme Court held that right of appeal was provided by Section 38(1) to a party aggrieved by same order which affects his right or liability. In the context of Section 38(1), it was held the phrase "every order" did not include interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. At page 800, the Supreme Court held: