- (1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 2745, 2746 and 1855 of 1989 and 766 of 1990, as the question involved in common in all these cases.
(2.) IN Civil Revision Petition No. 1157 of 1987, the question referred is: Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, would be competent against an order declining to issue a Commission for any of the purposes enumerated in Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) EARLIER, this very question was referred to a Division Bench of this Code in the case reported as Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram, I. L. R. 1979 (1) P and H 147. There the question referred was answered by the Division Bench in the following terms :- "in view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that no revision would lie against an order passed under Order 26, rule 9, and the view taken in M/s Mohinder Kumar Rajinder Parkash; Dalmir Singh alias Dalmira and Mangal Singh and Anr. v. Piara Lal (1971) 73 P. L. R. 531 cases lays down the correct law. " However before parting with the Judgment the Bench also observed in paragraph 12 of the report in the above said case as follows : "before parting with the Judgment, it may, however, be made clear that it cannot as a general rule be laid down that in no case a "revision would lie against an interlocutory order passed under any other provision of Order 26 and that it would be on the facts of each case that it will have to be found out whether the interlocutory order, against which a revision is sought to be filed, has adjudicated for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy or not. ";