( 1 ) THE petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 26/08/1985 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court Surat thereby the court had appointed a Commissioner with the direction to prepare a Panchnama of the local inspection in the presence of the parties and there was a further direction that if the premises are found locked the same may be sealed by the Commissioner.

( 2 ) MR. K. G. Vakharia the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of the trial court is wholly without jurisdiction and that it is likely to cause irreparable loss and injury to the present petitioner. He therefore urges that the said order be quashed and set arise under the revisional powers of this court under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 3 ) MR. S. M. Shah the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to who are original plaintiffs has urged that the present revision is not maintainable as it does not fall within the scope of sec. 115 of the Code. Mr. Shall has urged that it cannot be said that the trial court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order or that the court had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or that there is any material irregularity or illegality regarding jurisdiction Mr. Shah has also urged that the present case is not covered either by clause (a) or (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of sec. 115 of the Code. Mr. Vakharia has urged that this is a clear case of the court exercising jurisdiction which it did not have in as much as the trial court has ordered that the suit premises be sealed if it is found locked. Mr. Vakharia has further urged that the present case is clearly covered by clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of sec. 115 of the Code in as much as there is failure of jurisdiction as well as it causes irreparable injury to the present petitioner who is a tenant has been ousted from the suit premises.

( 4 ) MR. Shah has contended that looking the impugned order it can not be said that it is without jurisdiction because according to him the first part of the order states that the Commissioner will make Panchnama after giving due notice to the parties. He therefore argues that if the premises were not locked and if the petitioner-tenant was present in the premises the Commissioner could have given notice there and then and the panchnama could have been made. In that event the second part of the order would not have to be carried out. According to him the first part of the order is completely within the jurisdiction of the court and therefore it cannot be said that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. As regards the second part of the order with regard to sealing the premises he has not been able to point out any provision of law which empowers the court to pass such an order. But his argument is that the second part has not to be taken separately for the purpose of deciding the legal validity off the entire order. This contention of Mr. Shah is clearly erroneous and it must be rejected. If any part of an impugned order is without jurisdiction the entire order must go. If is not open to break up also order into pieces and pick and choose some pieces as legally valid and the others as untenable. Mr. Shahs contention that in the peculiar circumstances of the case where the plaintiffs-landlord had alleged that the premises in question were not being used for the purpose it was let for a period of six months or more prior to the filing of the suit. According to him it is essential that the condition in which the premises exists at present must be a mattes of record and therefore the Commissioner must report to the court the condition in which it is existing. Assuming that there was any jurisdiction for appointing a commissioner for reporting about the condition of the suit premises in question at any given time there was absolutely no justification for passing an order to seal the same if it is found locked. The order therefore bein