PREM CHAND Vs. JASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the defendant is directed against an order of the learned Munsif, Kishengarh, allowing an application by the plaintiff for an amendment of his plaint. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 275/- against the applicant in the lower Court alleging that a certain amount of money on account of purchase and sale transactions of silver was due by the defendant of which, upon the settlement of accounts, the plaintiff agreed to accept only Rs. 1,200/-, out of which the defendant paid only Rs. 950/- and the balance was outstanding which the defendant did not pay up in soke of making a demand and serving a notice upon him. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 250/- by way of principal and Rs. 25/- as interest, thus Rs. 275/- in all. The defendant in his written statement denied the plaintiff's claim and alleged that the firm of Nahar Singh Jai Singh owed the plaintiff Rs. 1200/- and the defendant took upon himself to pay that sum to the plaintiff and he paid actually that sum to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon applied for permission to amend his plaint to the effect that the firm Chhitarmal Jai Singh owed the plaintiff through whose agency the firm had made certain transactions of the purchase and sale of silver, some money and the plaintiff agreed to accept from Nahar Singh in full satisfaction of the debt of that firm a sum of Rs. 1200/- and the defendant undertook to pay that amount to the plaintiff and that the cause of action arose on Poh Badi 1, Samwat 2003 when the plaintiff agreed to accept Rs. 1200/- from Nahar Singh and the defendant made himself responsible for the payment of that amount to the plaintiff. The amendment, as prayed for, was allowed to be made by the lower Court on the ground that the amendment was necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and that the same would not prejudice the defendant in any manner. The lower Court also held that the relief claimed was the same and there was no material change in the cause of action and the liability of the defendant was also not altered. It is against this order of the learned Munsif that the defendant has come here in revision.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the order challenged here does not amount to a case decided within the meaning of section 115 and, therefore, no revision lies. It may be observed that the word "case" as used in section 115 should be understood in its broadest and most ordinary sense and an interlocutory order is a case decided within the meaning of that section and, as has been held in A. I. R. 1948 Nag. 258 by a Full Bench of the Nagpur High Court, the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain revision touching a question of amendment of a pleading. A revision, therefore, would lie against an order allowing or refusing to allow an amendment of a plaint, if other conditions laid down in section 115 of the C. P. C. are fulfilled. But the High Court would interfere with the order challenging revision only when, as has been held in A. I. R. 1943 Lah. 65, it is satisfied that the order has resulted or is likely to result in such gross injustice or irreparable injury as cannot be remedied otherwise than by the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court at that stage.