Interlocutory orders, including those refusing amendment of pleadings, are revisable by the High Court, and the potential irreparable injury to a party is a relevant consideration in such cases.

ORDER :- This is a petition to review this Courts decision dated 29th April, 1978. By the aforesaid order this Court had allowed Civil Revision Application No. 43/77 preferred against an order dated 21-3-1977 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco-da-Gama refusing amendment to the written statement The amendment to the written statement as prayed for will now be carried out, by reason of this Courts order.

2. Review is sought on account of an error apparent on the face of the record. According to the petitioner, the Court though duly noticed an objection taken by the petitioner that the petition of revision was not maintainable having been filed against an interlocutory order, failed to deal with it in the judgment. Secondly, the Court also failed to notice the bar provided in S. 115, C. P. C. in entertaining the petition of revision. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner has argued that no case for review having been made out, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. It is seen that in paragraph 7 of the judgment under review this Court noticed an argument advanced by the learned lawyer for the non-applicant in the aforesaid revision petition that the order in question being an interlocutory order could not be interfered with in revision. True it is that no finding on the said contention has been recorded. But it cannot be said that the Court had not considered the contention whilst allowing the revision application. Assuming that the matter can be taken into consideration at this stage. I have no doubt that the contention has no substance. Saurashtra High Court in the case of Narshiprasad v. Vidutray (AIR 1954 Sau 66) in agreement with the general trend of the decisions that interlocutory orders are revisable by the High Court under Sec. 115 held that an order refusing an amendment of pleading is revisable by the High Court. Such being the position omission by this Court to record a finding is not material which has affected the ultimate decision reached in the case. So the first contention fails.

4. Coming to the second point the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the amended S. 115 the non-applicant (the revision petitioner) had failed to establish that the order impugned therein if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to him. It is not correct to say that this Court whilst allowing the revision had not taken into consideration the aforesaid requirements of law. A perusal of the judgment under review would clearly indicate that without the amendment of the written statement the defendant in the suit had nothing to urge for the dismissal of the suit. If the order refusing amendment would have been allowed to stand there is no doubt that the defendant would have sustained irreparable injury.

5. For the reasons stated above I find no merit in the review application which is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Petition dismissed.