JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Pritish Kumar learned counsel for revisionist and Mr. Viswa Nath Mishra learned counsel for opposite party No.1. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties 2,3 and 4 stand dispensed with.

2. Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure has been filed against order dated 15th November, 2022 in regular suit No. 2216 of 2022 whereby application for issuance of commission under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code filed by the plaintiff-opposite party No.1 has been allowed.

3. At the very outset learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of revision under Section 115 of the Code with the submission that the order impugned is merely interlocutory in nature and does not amount in case decided as envisaged under Section 115 of the Code and therefore revision would not be maintainable. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur Versus M/s. Swaraj Developers and others reported in 2003 AIR (SCW) 2445 as well as judgment rendered by High Court of Madras in the case of Pormusamy Pandaram Versus The Salem Vai