( 1 ) THE Petitioners in these Revisions were Defendants in sundry summary suits who had unsuccessfully applied for leave to defend those suits. The Respondents have raised the preliminary objection questioning their very maintainability of the Revisions. It is not as if one is on virgin territory, since this question has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Siri Krishan Bhardwaj v. Manohar Lal Gupta and another, AIR 1977 Delhi 226. It had been noted in that Judgment that two Learned Judges had returned divergent opinions on this subject. B. C. Misra, J. had opined that a Revision is maintainable whereas D. K. Kapur, J. took the diametrically opposite view that only an appeal against the decree can be entertained. The Division Bench clarified that a Revision entailed only the bringing of an `error` to the notice of the High Court and conferred no further right of hearing on the aggrieved party. It went on to discuss that an order refusing to grant Leave to Defend has far reaching consequences and would normally fall within the ambit of the phrase "any case which has been decided", bringing the adjudication to a virtual end so far as the Defendan