JUDGMENT

Rafique, J. - The Reference to the Fall Bench raises the question of the revisional powers of this Court u/s 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It appears that the plaintiff resides and carries on business as a sloth merchant in Etawah, while the defendants are commission agents who live and carry on business at Cawnpore. A dispute arose between them in connection with the orders given by the plaintiff for the purchase of cloth. The plaintiff thereupon instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Etawah for the recovery of a certain amount by way of damages. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the Court at Etawah had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which should have been filed in tin Civil Court at Cawnporer. The learned Munsif, instead of trying all the issues raised in the case, proceeded to receive evidence and hear arguments on the question of jurisdiction only, He disposed of the issue of jurisdiction be his order dated die 27th of August 1919 against the defendants. A formal order was drawn up later on, embodying the decision of the issue. The defendants preferred an application in revision from the raid order, seeking the interference of this Court u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application same up for hearing before a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, before whom a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the plaintiff that the order complained of, being an interlocutory order, could not form a fit subject of revision by this Court. In view of conflict of opinion net only among the different High Courts but in this Court also, the learned Judges have referred the question to a larger Bench. The referring order raises the general question of the competency of this Court to interfere with interlocutory orders, though the arguments have naturally been mostly directed to the particular matter in issue between the parties, namely, whether the defendants, whose objection to the jurisdiction of the learned Mursif has been rejested, can invoke the aid of this Court u/s 115 of the Civil Procedure Court, The other matter upon which the parties are at variance, Lamely, whet Let the decision of the Munsif on the plea of jurisdiction is justified by the materials on the record, has not been argusd, nor, has it been referred to us therefore, propose to confine myself to the consideration of the question, whether the disposal of the plea of jurisdiction by a Court subordinate to this Court against the party that has taken the objection an be revised by this Court u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I propose to deal with the question vary shortly. It in contended on behalf of the opposite party, the plaintiff in the suit, that the present application is not maintainable because, first, no case has been decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC and, secondly, another remedy is open to the applicant, namely, in case of & decree against him he can at the time of appeal question the jurisdiction of the Munsif. It in argued that no case, but a part of the case, has been disposed of. The case is really still pending in the Court of the Musnif. The defendants will have time enough to challenge the jurisdiction of the Munsif if a decree id pasted against there and they choose to appeal from it. For the applicants the argument in that a decree is not the same thing as a suit. The word "case" has a much larger significance. The words "case which has been decided" are large enough to include any particular question in issue between the parties to a suit, with question has been disposed of by a judicial order. As to another remedy being open to the applicants, that has nothing to do with the maintainability of the present application. In Section 115 one of the eruditions required is that no appeal lies from the order complained of. The section does not mean to say that no remedy pt any time is open to the aggrieved party. Moreover, it would be small correlation to the applicants