D.S.TEWATIA, J. - (1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order dated the 29th November, 1976, passed by Sub -Judge II Class, Jullundur, whereby the disallowed the application of the petitioner herein (and defendant before him) for effecting amendment in her written statement to the effect that one Dhani Ram was a tenant in the shop in dispute on 22nd April, 1975, and attorned to Abhilasha Sehgal as his landlady and had handed over the vacant possession of the premises to her on 22nd April, 1975, against a writing executed to that effect.
(2.) THE legality of the impugned order has to be judged in the light of background facts of the case. Smt. Kartar Devi was the purchased by the defendant -petitioner. Raj Kumar, plaintiff -respondent claimed perpetual injunction restraining the defendants including the petitioner -defendant from dispossessing him forcibly. In the written statement the petitioner -defendants as also defendant Nos. 2 and 4 before the trial Court took of the stand that the suit was not maintainable as defendant No. 2, petitioner herein, was in possession of the shop on the date on which she was impleaded as defendant to the suit. From the facts it would be seen that the maintainability of the suit was questioned on the ground that the petitioner -defendant was in possession of the shop in dispute. The petitioner -defendant through the application for amendment in question only sought to add the fact as to how and when she came into possession of the shop in dispute. This amendment was disallowed for two reasons, firstly, that it was unnecessary and secondly that it had been sought after a considerable delay.
(3.) THE counsel for the respondents has reiterated those very grounds. He has additionally urged that the revision petition is not competent in view of the amended provisions of Section 115 of the New Civil Procedure Code, the provision of which are in the following terms : - "115. (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears : - (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit; 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 proceedings, 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. (2) The High Court shall not, under this Section vary or reverse any decree of order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. Explanation : 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." A perusal of the above provisions would show that this Court's power to entertain revision from an interlocutory order stands curtailed even in cases where the order was passed either without jurisdiction or the order suffered from illegality or material irregularity, if the order is not of the kind which if had been passed in favour of the petitioner would have put an end to the suit or proceedings in which it was passed, or if not interdicted by this court would result in irreparable loss to the petitioner or would result in miscarriage of justice.;