Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) On the reference that has been made by the learned single Judge vide his order dated May 3, 1978, the question of law that requires determination may be formulated thus- "Whether revision lies against an order passed under O. 26, R. 9 of the Civil P. C. refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner?"
(2.) The reference has been made as in the opinion of the learned Judge there appeared to be a conflict of opinion on this aspect of the matter. In Dalmir Singh alias Dalmira v. Sant Parkash, Civil Revision No. 1459 of 1975, decided on Sept. 21, 1976,** R. S. Narula, C. J. (as he then was), on the basis of the judgment of Pattar J., in Mohinder Kumar Rajinder Parkash v. Basheshar Nath, (1976) 78 Pun LR 280, held that no revision lay against such an order. On the contrary, S. C. Mital J., in M/s, Goverdhan Das Gopi Nath v. Smt. Amolak Raj, 1975 Cur LJ 744 (Punj), has held that an order refusing to issue a commission is revisable under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. {**Reported in 1976 Rev LR 654 (Punj and Har)}
(3.) Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that a revision lay against an order refusing to appoint a Ideal Commissioner and that the view taken in M/s. Goverdhan Das Gopi Nath's case was the correct view and deserved to be upheld. Besides relying on the reasoning given in M/s. Goverdhan Dass Gopi Nath's case, the learned counsel relied on the explanation added to Section 115 of the Civil P. C., which is in the following terms:- "In this section, the expression 'any case which has been decided' includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding." On the strength of the aforesaid explanation, it was contended by Mr. Sarin that the order declining to appoint a commission was passed in the course of a suit and such an order fell within the expression 'case decided'.;