CHANNABASAWWA ALIAS CHANNAWWA Vs. BHIMAPPA RAMAPPA HOSAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition with CRP.2363/73 has been referred by Bhimiah, J., to a Bench of two Judges fop hearing and disposal as there are conflicting views expressed by learned single Judges of this Court on the, question whether a, revision under S.115 of CPC lies against an order allowing or refusing an application to frame an additional issue, or to recast an issue already framed.

(2.) In N. H. Gouda Patil v. B. S. Patil, 1 LR. 684; Sajdasivayya, J. (as he then was) has ruled that a revision lies in such matters. That was also the view taken in Venkateshwara Rao v. Ammepeddiah, CRP. 2003/73 and in Kotiswaramma v. Venkateswara Rao, CRP. 1994/73. But, recently in Bhajanemane Narasimha Reddy v. Nanjunda Reddy, CRP. 1272/73 and in Ramappa v. Syed Ahmed, CRP. 1387/73; Jagannatha Shetty, J. took a contrary view holding that the expression, 'case decided' does not comprehend within its ambit an order allowing or refusing an application to frarne an additional issue or to recast an issue.

(3.) Ordinarily, the High Court will not interfere with an order allowing or refusing amendment of issues, deletion qf issues or addition of issues. That is the view taken not only by this High Court but also by other High Courts. The only other decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents is Manickavachakam v. Offcl. Receiver, Negapatnam, AIR. 1939 Mad. 733; but that decision does not lay down that under no circumstances a, revision lies under S.115 of the Code against an order allowing or refusing amendment of issues. This is what Burn J. has stated in the said case :