JUDGMENT

P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, CJ. — This revision is by the defend¬ants in a suit for partition. The plaintiff, the opposite party herein, filed the suit claiming that he was the adopted son of one Badrinarayan Satapathy through his first wife. Defendant No. 1 claims to be the second wife of late Badrinarayan Satapathy and defendant No. 2 is her daughter through Badrinarayan Satapathy. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement challenging the status of adopted son put forward by the plaintiff in the suit.

2. The suit was posted for steps and ultimately it was posted for ‘hearing’. On that day, defendants 1 and 2 filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend their written statement and seeking to include a counter claim seeking a declaration that the deed of adoption relied on by the plaintiff was void. It appears that the plea sought to be introduced is one of non-est factum. This applica¬tion for amendment of the written statement was opposed by the plaintiff on whose behalf it was contended that an application for amendment could not be entertained since the suit was posted for ‘hearing’ in view of the amendment to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 which intro¬duced the proviso to the said Rule and that in any event, the amend¬ment prayed for would tend to displace the plaintiff from the position in which he was placed by the original written state¬ment. The trial Court held that since the suit was posted for hearing, in view of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Proce¬dure as amended by Act 22 of 2002, the amendment could not be allowed. No other aspect was discussed. Being aggrieved by that order of rejection of the application for amendment of the written state¬ment, defendants l and 2 have filed this Revision.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party submitted that the Revision was not maintainable in view of the amendment brought to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Proce¬dure restricting interference in the Revision only in cases where the allowing of the Revision would result in the final disposal of the suit as a whole. Counsel relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Debi Das (deceased) and etc. v. State of U.P. and others (AIR 2003 Allahabad 14) wherein the Allahabad High Court held that an interim direction to maintain the status quo pending an application for injunction could not be challenged in Revision under Section 115 of the Code, after its amendment. Counsel also relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in K. R. Subbaraju v. M/s. Vasavi Trading Co. and others (AIR 2002 Karnataka 407) wherein that Court held that even if the impugned order suffered from a jurisdictional error, the same could not be interfered with unless it could be shown or found that if the order were made in favour of the Revision Petitioner that would finally dispose of the suit. The decision of the Allahabad High Court appears to be distinguishable, the same having arisen from an interlocutory order in an interlocutory application under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even before the amendment by Act 22 of 2002, that was seldom interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, the decision of the Karnataka High Court relied on by the learned counsel is more in point. Therein, the effect of the amendment has been discussed. A literal reading of the proviso to Section 115 of the Code as it reads after Amending Act 22 of 2002, and the indication available by the dropping of Clause (b) of the proviso to the effect that interference was possible in case the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made, would justify the acceptance of the objection by the opposite party.

4. Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers wide powers on the Cour