BHIKA RAM Vs. RAM NIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision-petition Under Section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has challenged interlocutory order dated 5. 9. 1992, passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Narnaul, in the course of Civil Suit No. 568 of 1986, allowing the application of the respondent-plaintiffs for leading additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) PROVISO to Sub-section (1) of Section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure, prohibits the High Court from varying or reversing any order exempt where" (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. " The impugned order does not fulfil the requirement of Clause (a); nor that of irreparable injury postulated in Clause (b) of the proviso. This brings us to the other ingredient of Clause (b), namely, the litmus test of the question "whether the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice".

(3.) IF at all, the petitioner fails in the suit and ultimately a judgment and decree is passed on the basis of the impugned order, he would be entitled to challenge it in appeal against the decree under Rule 1-A of Order 43, read with Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it cannot be said in the present case that the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice, so as to justify interference with it Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.