A revision petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a subordinate court under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151, C.P.C., if the order has occasioned failure of justice or caused irreparable injury to the party against whom the order has been made.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27-9-1994 passed by the sub-Judge IInd Class, Patiala on an application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 read with S. 151, C.P.C. for framing additional issues. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order because the learned Sub-Judge has dismissed his application.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for possession of the property in dispute as well as for mandatory injunction. In the plaint, it has been alleged that the respondent is the owner of the property No. 839 which was given to the petitioner as a licencee. Defendant-petitioner has contested the suit by alleging that the plaintiff-respondent does not have any right over the property in question. He has pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent is not the owner of the property. The property is an evacuee property belonging to the Rehabilitation Department and as the defendant-petitioner is living in the disputed property since the year 1944, he has acquired a right to continue in possession. It has also been pleaded by the defendant-petitioner that earlier to the filing of suit, the plaintiff-respondent filed a petition u/S. 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 but got it dismissed in default when the defendant-petitioner raised an objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: -

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possess the suit property? OPP (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. (3) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD (4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD. (5) Whether the plaintiff filed a rent petition against the defendants previously which was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Patiala vide order dated 9-2-93? OPD (6) Whether the suit property is not fully described, if so its effect? OPD. (7) Relief.

4. After evidence of the parties was recorded by the trial Court, the defendant-petitioner moved an application under O. 14, R. 5 read with S. 151, C.P.C. with the request that the following additional issue be framed: --

(1) Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit property as a licencee of plaintiff? (2) Whether the defendant has become the owner of the property by way of adverse possession? (3) Whether the property is owned by the Rehabilitation Department?

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court held that there was no necessity of framing additional issues inasmuch the additional issues sought to be framed are covered by the first issue already framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The trial Court further held that the application had been filed with the sole object of filling the gaps in the evidence of the defendant-petitioner and that deficiency in the evidence of the parties cannot be allowed to be rectified by framing additional issues and then giving them the opportunity to lead additional evidence.

6. Before I deal with the contention of Mr. Kataria on merits of the impugned order, it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Puri argued that against the order passed by a competent Court dismissing an application filed under O. 14, Rule 5 read with Sec. 151, C.P.C., revision petition is not maintainable u/S. 115, C.P.C. Mr. Puri further argued that the order passed by a competent Court on such application cannot be treated as a case decided and, therefore, the High Court cannot entertain the revision petition. He relied on two decisions of Allahabad High Court in Amir Singh V/s. Om Parkash, AIR 1978 All 15 and Sri Ram Narain V/s. Rajeshwari, AIR 1978 All 214.

7. Section