SATISH CHANDRA Vs. KRISHNA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since in this revision parties are represented and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged it is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(2.) The present revision is preferred as against an order dated 11th April, 1988, by virtue of which an application for amendment of the written statement was rejected. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the present revision is not maintainable in view of the proviso of Section 115, C.P.C. Under the second proviso it is referred : - "........ the High Court or the District Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where- (i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made." It was argued on the basis of this proviso that the matter is not revisable and the revision should be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

(3.) The present revision in effect is against rejection of amendment in the pleading under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. The matter is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Rama Shanker Tiwari v. Mahadeo, 1968 0 AllLJ 109 wherein it has been held that allowing or rejecting an amendment application amounts to "Case decided" in terms of Section 115, C.P.C. Similar is the view taken subsequently in Sri Ram Narayan Jaiswal v. St. Rajeshwari Devi, AIR 1978 All 214.