An order allowing the defendant to file a written statement, though late, is not revisable under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code as it does not affect the merits of the case.

( 1 ) INHERENT powers u/s 151 are similar to an order as court thinks fit u/0. 7 R 10, Civil Procedure Code.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed a suit against the D. D. A. on l7. 5. 71 for injunction against demolition of his shops. Defendant appeared on 3. 6. 71 and did not file written statement and did not do so for several hearings and ultimately Court refused further opportunity on 13. 1. 72 and fixed case for plaintiff s evidence for 29. 1. 72. Some witnessess were examined on that day and case was adjourned for rest of witnesses to 3 3. 72. On this day, defendant applied for permission to file written statement pleading that office file had been misplaced and that caused the delay. Defendant was allowed to do so oal4. 11. 72on payment of Rs. 50 as costs. The plantiff challenged this order by revision U/s 115, Civil Procedure Code High Court examined the scope of S. 115 and dismissed the petition. Para 3 onwards the judgement is :-

( 3 ) THE word "case" does not refer necessaarily to the case as a whole but can include even a part of the case. Therefore, a decision on a part of the case is also revisable even though it does not dispose of the whole of the case. It is necessary, however, that such a decision must effect the rights and liabilities of the parties. It should not be marely an interlocutory order like the orders of stay, injunction or receiver which are designed to preserve the status quo or to preserve the property pending the litigation or merely a procedural order like the orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of commissions for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises or fixing a date of hearing or granting or refusing an adjournment or admitting a document in evidence as relevent or rejecting it. Baldevdas Shivlal V Filmistan Distributors etc. , 1969 (2) S. C. C. 201 and Central Bank of India V. Gokulchand AIR 1967 S. C. 799 at 800 ). It may, therefore, be said that such an order should be on the merits of the case. The distinction therefore, is between an order on the merits of the case and order which does not affect the merit of the case. The former can be said to affect the rights andbligations of the parties, while the latter may be regraded as not doing so. The difference is, of course, often a difference of kind. Nor, it would be difficult to imagine an order which does not prejudicially affect either of the parties at all. In an adversary proceeding, the parties are so much pitted against each other that every step, even if it is merely procedural, is likely to affect either of the parties prejudicially though the amount of the prejudice may be small or big depending on the cirumstances of each case. It cannot be said, however that every order which is passed by the Court during the trial of a suit amounts to a "case decided" within the meaning of section 115 Civil Procedure Code. The distinction has therefore, to be maintained even though it is to be applied to the facts of each particular case and sometimes such application may bo a matter of considerable argument.

( 4 ) IN the present case, the impugned order has only allowed the defendant to file a written statement. If does not affect the merits of the case at all. Of course, the plaintiff can claim to be prejudiced thereby because he was hoping to get a decision against the defendant without the defendant being allowed to defend itself. But such prejudice in not the test of an order which can be said to affect the rights and liabilities of the parties. Such rights and liabilities apparently mean the subjective rights and liabilities relating to the merits of the case I am of the view, therefore, that the impugned order could not be said to have amounted to "case decided" within the meaning of section 115 Civil Procedure Code.

( 5 ) AS to jurisdiction, it was not contended that the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It was, however, con