B.N.AGRAWAL, J.

1. This revision application is directed against the impugned order by which the plaintiffs have been debarred from examining defendant No. 2 Brijbihari Prasad Singh as a witness on their behalf on the sole ground that no order was passed for acceptance of the written statement filed by defendant No. 2.

2. The short facts for disposal of this civil revision application are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition against the defendants in which defendants 1 to 5 filed written statement contesting the claim for partition. Defendant No. 2 entered appearance in the suit on 14-8-1984 and filed written statement but the petition for acceptance of his written statement was not moved at any point of time and, consequently, no order could be passed thereupon. In the suit, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the contesting defendants led evidence first. Thereafter, the plaintiffs started examining their witnesses and on 13-12-1989 they wanted to examine defendant No. 2 as P.W. 18 on their behalf and when his examination-in-chief was going on, at objection was raised on behalf of the contesting defendants that this witness cannot be allowed to be examined on behalf of the plaintiffs in view of the fact that no order was passed accepting the written statement filed on behalf of this defendant. The said objection has been upheld by trial court under the impugned order and the plaintiffs have been disallowed to examine defendant No. 2 as witness on their behalf. Hence the plaintiffs have moved this Court by filing the present revision application.

3. This revision application was placed for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court who by order dated 24-6-1991 directed that the case be placed for hearing before a Division Beach and accordingly, this application has been placed before us.

4. Shri Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, raised a preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the revision application on the ground that the impugned order does not case within the ambit of the expression case decided as postulated under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that after amendment in the Code by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Central Act 104 of 1976) which came into force on 1-2-1977, every order passed by a Court would come within the expression case decided especially in view of the explanation added to Sub-sec. (2) of S. 115 of the Code. In view of this, it is necessary first to decide the question as to whether this revision application is maintainable or not.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Ramgulam Choudhary V/s. Nawin Choudhary, AIR 1972 Pat 499 in which it was laid down that an order passed by trial court allowing the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence after close of case of the defendant did not amount to case decided and, therefore, revision under S. 115 of the Code was not maintainable against such an order after placing reliance upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in Major S. S. Khanna V/s. Brig. F. J. Dillon; AIR 1964 SC 497 and Baldevdas Shivlal V/s. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 406 wherein it was laid down that a particular order would come within the expression case decided, if thereby the court adjudicates for the purpose of suit some rights or obligation of the parties in controversy.

6. Question arises what would be the effect of amendment in S. 115 of the Code by inserting an explanation in Sub-sec. (2) of S. 115 of the Code and whether in spite of the aforesaid amendment the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Major S. S. Khanna (supra) and Baldevdas Shivlal (supra) still hold the field. The present case will be governed by amended provision of S