The judgment establishes that an order allowing amendment of pleadings is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2000, unless it finally disposes of the suit or causes failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The Petitioners in this revision are the Defendants in Title Suit No. 69 of 2000 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, and they have challenged the order, dated 27.11.2002, passed in the suit, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint made by the Plaintiff-opposite party has been allowed by the learned trial Court.

2. In a nutshell, the material facts leading to this revision may be narrated as follows:

The Plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 69/2000 aforementioned seeking, inter alia, declaration of Plaintiffs right as co-owner over the suit property claiming the same to be a joint property of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Defendants filed their written statement laying counter-claim over the property. In the suit so instituted, the Plaintiffs submitted an application for amendment of the plaint, whereby a prayer was made to the effect that a decree for partition of the suit property by also granted. This application for amendment was resisted by the Defendants on the ground, inter alia, that the amendments, sought for, would change the nature and character of the plaint. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the prayer for amendment was, as indicated hereinabove, allowed by the impugned order.

3. The short point, which arises for consideration in the present revision, is this: can an order allowing amendment of pleadings be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2000?

4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners-Defendants, and I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order.

5. Before entering into the merit of the order, it is pertinent to refer to, and quote hereinbelow, Section 115 as it existed before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, was given effect to on 1st of July, 2002. Section 115, as per the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, read as follows:

115. Revision: (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears:

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit;

Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where-

(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or

(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

6. A careful reading of the above unamended provisions of Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure reveals that an order, which decided a case, but not appealable, could have been interfered with, in revision, if the subordinate Court appeared to have exercise of the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or have failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it or have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. This exercise of revisional power was, however, subject to two conditions, which were embodied in Clause (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 115(1), namely, (a) that the order, which is sought to get revised, was such that if the order had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, it would have terminated the suit or the proceeding, or (b) if the order was such that it could cause, if allowed to stand, failure of justice or irreparable loss or injury to the party against whom the order was made.