S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the interlocutory order dated September 17, 1981 of the District Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned District Judge, dismissed the petitioner's application dated September 17, 1981, in which it was prayed by her that her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. XXV of 1955) (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) be disposed of first. The ground stated in the application was that without obtaining the litigation expenses, it is not possible to get the written statement prepared, for, fee has to be paid to the counsel for the purpose. The learned District Judge by the impugned order while dismissing the application directed that the petitioner should file the written statement on September 19, 1981. The non -petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur on February 9, 1981. After service of summons, on behalf of the non -petitioner, Shri J.L. Mehta, Advocate, filed power and took time for filing written statement. The next date fixed in the case was July 8, 1981. On that date, learned Counsel for the petitioner took time for filing a reply. Last adjournment was given for filing it. The case was adjourned to August 13, 1981. On August 13, 1981, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has not been able to come to and therefore, time may be granted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had no objection and, therefore, time was allowed. On September 17, 1981, the application as stated above, was moved. Aggrieved by the order dismissing the application and directing the petitioner to tile written statement on September 19, 1981, the petitioner has filed this revision.
(2.) SHOW cause notice was issued to the non -petitioner. In pursuance of it, Mr. K.C. Samdaria has appeared. Learned Counsel for the non -petitioner has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision. He contended that the impugned order does not amount to a 'case decided', within Section 115(1) CPC and, therefore, the order cannot be revised in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the non petitioner has invited my attention to Baldevdas v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd. : [1970]1SCR435 and Sada Ram v. Delhi Development Authority : AIR1974Delhi35 .
(3.) THE objection regarding maintainability of the revision is resisted by Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner of the basis of Latika Gosh v. Nirmal Kumar : AIR1968Cal68 . He submits that the petitioner's right to get the application under Section 24 of the Act decided first before filing of the written statement has been denied and by the dismissal of the application dated 17th September, 1981, there has been adjudication of the rights and that, contends the learned Counsel, amounts to a 'case decided' under Section 115(1) CPC.;