- (1.) By an order dated June 5, 1980, the Rent Controller dismissed the application or the petitioner, vide which the petitioner had prayed that notice he issued to the other legal representatives of the deceased. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed by the respondent petitioner.
(2.) Landlord-respondent filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against Sulekh Chand, the husband of the present petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, Sulekh Chand died. The present petitioner filed an application for bringing her and two of her minor sons on record. To that extent the application was allowed, but her prayer for issuing notice to the other legal representatives was dismissed.
(3.) Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent landlord has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the proviso to section 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, the present petition is not competent. I find merit in this contention. The proviso is in the following terms :- "115. xx xx xx xx (Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except 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 proceedings, 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). x x x". From the reading of this proviso, it is plain that High Court shall not vary or reverse any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding except where, the order if it bad been made in favour of the party applying for revision could have finally disposed of the matter, or, if it allowed to stand would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. So far as the petitioner is concerned, her application is allowed. Hence the impugned order has not caused any irreparable loss or injury or has not occasioned failure of justice to the petitioner. Accordingly this petition is dismissed as not competent. There will be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.;