( 1 ) THIS is an application by the original plaintiff who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 1959 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Karjan for the recovery of Rs. 3700. 00 from two persons who were defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the suit defendant No. 2 was sought to be made liable because he was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 although the promissory note was executed by defendant No. 1 alone.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff then gave an application for amending the plaint in the following terms :in the alternative it is also prayed that both the defendants are the brothers and they have a joint undivided family and they have a joint family running cloth shop and that it is managed by the defendant No 1. And for the business of the said shop the defendant No. 1 had purchased the cloth from the plaintiff and after settling the account thereof in the interest and benefit of the defendants joint family the defendant No. 1 as Manager of the defendants joint family executed on 4th May 1958 the promissory note for Rs. 3416. 00 in favour of the plaintiff. And on acknowledging the entire debt due to the plaintiff on the said promissory note both the defendants settled at Rs. 2501. 00 on 8th March 1959 and executed the writing of installments duly signed by both the defendants; and hence the defendant No. 2 is also liable to pay the suit claim and from the above fact it also appears that the defendant No. 2 has interest in the cloth shop and hence even if there be any legal hitch in establishing the liability of the defendant No. 2 for the suit claim the defendant No. 2 is also liable for the suit claim on account of their executing the agreement dated 8-3-1959 for Rs. 2501. 00 after acknowledging the debt of Rs 3416/- due on the pro-note dated 4 May 1958; and for that reason also the suit is filed against both the defen- dants to recover the suit amount.

( 3 ) THIS application was rejected and hence this revision application.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the opponents contends that this revision application does not lie because this is not a case decided and he relies on Mt. Suraj Pali v. Arya Pretinidhi A. I. R. 1936 Allahabad 686 which is a ruling of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court. On this point as observed by the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court there was a conflict of the opinion in the Allahabad High Court itself and there is a conflict of opinion between the Allahabad High Court Court and some other High Courts namely Calcutta and Madras High Courts vide (1) Sivprasad Ram v. Tricomdas Coverji Bhoja I. L. R. 42 Cal. 926 (2) Salam Chand Kannyram v. Bhagwan Das Chilhama I. L. R. 53 Cal. 767 (3) Shri Krishna Doss v. Chandook Chand I. L. R. 32 Mad. 324 and (4) Kariya Goundan v Tirukkaivelu A. I. R. 1925 Madras 585 (2 ).

( 5 ) THE question whether the decision of a Court on an interlocutory petition amounts to a case decided has been the subject of conflict. The learned Judges of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered that the word case could not be given a wide meaning so as to cover an interlocutory order passed by a Court during the trial of the suit. But the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court are of the contrary view. In I. L. R. 42 Calcutta 926 it was observed that the High Court can interfere with interlocutory orders when they might lead to failure of justice or irreparable injury. It was further observed as under:even if it were doubtful whether sec. 115 does empower us to interfere in a case of this kind I think that our powers under sec. 15 of the Charter Act are wide enough to enable us to do justice.

( 6 ) IN I. L. R. 53 Calcutta 767 Cuming J. observed as under :to decide a case in to decide the whole case and not to decide a part of the case. Therefore sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to interlocutory orders. and page J. observed thus :

( 7 ) THE High Court has jurisdiction under sec. 115 of t