Satish Chandra Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Amritsar, rejecting, the application of the Defendant -Petitioner for examining two witnesses residing in Bombay on commission
(2.) ON behalf of the Plaintiff Respondent, a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this petition has been raised. Reliance is placed on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Mangal Singh v. Piara Lal, (1971) 73 P. L. R 531,(sic) laying down: The remedy for a party if a coo mission is not issued as desired by it is not by revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the party can make it a ground of appeal if such an appeal becomes necessary against the final decree itself. The order refusing a commission is just an interlocutory one and cannot be said to be a case within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, strong reliance was placed on Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig F.J. Dhilion : A.I.R. 1964 S. C. 497, in which their Lordships held that the expression "case " is a word of comprehensive import. To interpret the expression " case " as an entire proceeding only and not a part of a proceeding would be to impose a restriction upon the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Their Lordships further held: Once it is granted that the expression " case " includes a part of a case, there is no escape from the conclusion that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court may be exercised irrespective of the question whether an appeal lies from the ultimate decree or order passed in the suit. Any other view would impute to the Legislature an intention to restrict the exercise of this salutary jurisdiction to those comparatively unimportant suits and proceedings in which the appellate jurisdiction of the High Courts is excluded for reasons of public policy. Nor is the expression "in which no appeal lies thereto " susceptible of the interpretation that it excludes the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction when an appeal may be competent from the final order. The use of the word " in " is not intended to distinguish orders passed in proceedings not subject to appeal from the final adjudication, from those from which no appeal lies If an appeal lies against the adjudication directly to the High Court, or to another Court from the decision of which an appeal lies to the High Court, it has no power to exercise its revisional jurisdiction but where the decision itself is not appealable to the High Court directly or indirectly, exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court would not be deemed to be excluded.
(3.) FOLLOWING the decision of Major S. S. Khanna's case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Sadhu Ram Bali Ram v. M/s Ghanshak Dass Madan Lal, 1975 Rev. L. R. 22, laid down that merely the fact that a person aggrieved from an interlocutory order could make it a ground of attack in appeal, would be no ground to refuse to entertain a revision petition. The learned Judge also laid down that an order refusing to change the onus of an issue fall within the ambit of words " case decided. " Hence such an order was revisable under Section 115 of the Code.;