1. This revision petition is filed by the defendant against the order of the Additional Munsif, 2nd Court, Patna, directing him (the defendant) to lead his evidence.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,654.41 from the defendant. According to the case of the plaintiff, the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff. The defendant pays a monthly rent of Rs. 71/- exclusive of electric charges. Apart from the monthly rent, the defendant is required to pay electric charges to the plaintiff.

3. The defendant admits in his written statement that he is the monthly tenant of the plaintiff. He also admits that he is to pay electric charges apart from monthly rent. He further stated in his written statement :-

"that it is respectfully mentioned that whenever electric bill was received by the plaintiff this defendant used to read the sub-meter installed in the shop occupied by the plaintiff and after adjustment of the amount, he (defendant) used to accompany the plaintiff for the electricity office and paid the electricity charge of his share to the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to make payment in presence of this defendant on behalf of this defendant as well as for himself."

4. On a perusal of the above mentioned paragraph in the written statement, it is clear that the case of the defendant was that he had paid the electric charges for the period in question (between Jan., 1972 and Nov., 1972).

5. On these facts, the Court below, relying on O.18, R.1 of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code), was of opinion that the onus is on the defendant to begin with the case.

6. The short point for consideration is : Whether this Court should exercise the revisional jurisdiction on the facts of this case or not ?

7. In our opinion, the answer must be given in the negative. This revision petition was admitted on 14th March, 1976 and by that time the Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be called the Amendment Act) had come into force. By virtue of the Amendment Act, it is clear that if a revision petition has been admitted after the Code of Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 has come into force then the provisions of the Amendment Act shall apply. By virtue of S.43 of the Amendment Act, S.115 of the Code was amended to the following effect :-

"Sec.115 of the Principal Act shall be renumbered as Sub-S. (1) thereof, and - (a) to Sub-S. (1) as so re-numbered, the following proviso shall be added, namely :-

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 said or other proceeding, 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 proceeding, 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.;

x x x x"

By virtue of the Amendment Act, the High Court shall not interfere with any order in a suit except where the order finally disposes of the suit or other proceeding in favour of the party or the order would occasion a failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. In the present case, the Court below directed the defendant to begin with the case for the simple reason that the defendant admitted the facts alleged by the plaintiff and the defendant also pleaded certain additional facts which compelled the Court to direct him (defendant) to begin with the case. In our opinion, the Court below was justified in exercising the discretion. We also hold that the case of the defendant does not come within the proviso to Sec.115 of the Code as added by the Amendment Act. By this order, the Court has not finally disposed of the suit in favour of any party. The order simply directs the defendants to begin with the case on the basis of O.18, R.1 of the Code. In our opinion, if the order is, allowed to stand, it