B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 4.5.2001 by which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') of the non-petitioner has been allowed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition contending that it is merely an interlocutory order and order passed on such an application does not decide the issue. Therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Bakshi and ors. v. Dharam Dev and ors., (2002) 2 SCC 2 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that amendment of the pleadings would not amount to decision on the Issue involved. They only would serve advance notice to the either side as to the plea, which a party might take up.
(3.) Shri Hedau has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 ; Santosh and anr. v. Archana Guha and ors., (1994) 2 SCC 420 ; V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI, AIR 1980 SC 962 ; Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pandey v. Uttam, (1999) 3 3CC 134 ; K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195 and Amar Nath v. State of Harayana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that certain orders may be interlocutory in form but are conclusive In substance. Such orders may also include the issue of jurisdiction of the court. Interim order may be an order which may be merged Into final order and lost its sanctity. In Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and ors., (2001) 7 SCC 401 , the Hon'ble Supreme court has held as under : "Whether an order is interlocutory or not, Minot be decided by merely looking at the order of merely because the order was passed at the interlocutory stage. The safe test laid down by this Court through a series of decision in this : if the contention of the petitioner who moves the superior court in revisions, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate ? It they would, then the order is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that It was passed during any interlocutory stage.";