JUDGMENT

G.C. Mathur, J. - The question whether the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Mst. Suraj Pali v. Ariya Pratinidhi Sabha 1936 AWR 776 (FB) holding that no revision lies from an order refusing to allow an amendment of a pleading Under Order VI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, requires re-consideration in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Major S.S. Khanna Vs. Brig. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 arose in two civil revisions before a Single Judge of this Court. In the suit, out of which Civil Revision No. 1736 of 1964 arises, the Defendant had filed an application for amendment, seeking to add a plea in his written statement that the Munsif, before whom the suit was pending had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This application was rejected by the Munsif and a revision was filed against the order of rejection. At the hearing of the revision, an objection was taken that the revision was incompetent as the order of the Munsif did not amount to a "case decided" within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Applicant in the revision contended that the decision in Mst. Suraj Pali's (supra) case was no longer good law in view of the wide meaning given to the words "case decided" by the Supreme Court in Khanna's (2 supra) case. In the suit, out of which Civil Revision No. 1739 of 1964 arises, an application was made by the Plaintiff for amendment of the plaint by the addition of certain new facts which had arisen after the filing of the plaint. The application was opposed by the Defendants on the ground that the amendments, if allowed, would ' change the nature of the suit. This amendment application was allowed by the Munsif and a revision was riled by the Defendants before this Court. The opposite-parties raised a preliminary objection that the revision was incompetent as the order of the Munsif did not amount to a "case decided" whereas the Applicants contended that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Khanna's (supra) case, the order did amount to a "case decided". In both the cases, the learned Single Judge passed the following order:

Let the papers of this case be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the re-consideration of the Full Bench decision in the case of Mst. Suraj Pali v. Ariya Pratinidhi Sabha 1936 AWR 776 (FB).

There was some controversy between counsel for the parties whether the entire cases had been referred for decision to the Full Bench or only the question regarding the maintainability of the revision was referred. It is desirable that the referring order should make it clear whether the entire case is referred to the Full Bench for decision or only a question or questions are referred for its opinion. In case a question or questions are referred for opinion, the question or questions should be formulated. In the present cases it appears from the orders of the learned Single Judge that he did not intend to refer the two revisions for decision to the Full Bench but only intended to refer the question regarding the maintainability of the two revisions for opinion to the Full Bench. Accordingly, with the consent of counsels for the parties, the questions referred for the opinion of the Full Bench in the two revisions have been combined into one question which may be formulated thus:

Whether an order passed Under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, either allowing an amendment or refusing to allow an amendment, is a "case decided" within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code?

Learned Counsel for the opp. parties contended that the matter is concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyarn v. Ram Autar Civil Appeal No. 506 of 1965 decided on 7-2-1967. This case arose out of a suit for partition filed in the court of the Civil Judge, Moradabad. After the preliminary decree had been passed, the Plaintiff; filed an application Under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of-the CPC for an amendment of the plaint as well as of th