Revisional jurisdiction over interlocutory orders extends to pleading amendments, remand directions and issue framing, subject to judicial discretion.

Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code was construed broadly to permit revision of an interlocutory order in a "case decided" where the subordinate court acts without jurisdiction, fails to exercise jurisdiction, or acts illegally or with material irregularity. Orders allowing or refusing amendment of pleadings, misconstruing remand directions, or omitting material issues may therefore be revisable in a fit case. The revisional power is not confined to final orders, but its exercise remains discretionary and must be guided by the facts of each case rather than any rigid rule.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order amending or refusing to amend a plaint or other pleading is open to revision; (ii) whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain revisions against interlocutory orders concerning interpretation of a remand order, amendment of a pleading, and framing of issues; (iii) whether, if such jurisdiction exists, the High Court should as a matter of discretion entertain such revisions.

Issue (i): Whether an order amending or refusing to amend a plaint or other pleading is open to revision

Analysis: Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code was held to extend to a "case decided" even where the order is interlocutory, and an order on amendment of pleadings may be revised where the subordinate court acts without jurisdiction, refuses to exercise jurisdiction, or acts illegally or with material irregularity. An amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code must serve the determination of the real questions in controversy, and a wrong refusal or allowance may attract revisional scrutiny when judicial principles are violated.

Conclusion: Yes. An order amending or refusing to amend a pleading is open to revision in a fit case.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain revisions against interlocutory orders concerning interpretation of a remand order, amendment of a pleading, and framing of issues

Analysis: The expression "case decided" in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code was construed broadly. The revisional power is not confined to final orders, and interlocutory orders may be revised if the statutory conditions are satisfied. Orders affecting remand directions, amendment of pleadings, and framing of issues may involve jurisdictional questions or material irregularity, particularly where the court misconstrues a remand order, exceeds the limits of the remand, omits to frame material issues under Order 14 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, or otherwise acts contrary to settled procedure.

Conclusion: Yes. The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain revisions on those interlocutory matters.

Issue (iii): Whether, if such jurisdiction exists, the High Court should as a matter of discretion entertain such revisions

Analysis: The revisional power is discretionary and must be exercised judicially on the facts and circumstances of each case. No rigid rule can be laid down that such revisions should always be rejected or always be entertained. Interference is justified where it is necessary to correct a jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or patent injustice, but revisions should not be used to convert the proceeding into a regular appeal or to encourage routine interference in interlocutory matters.

Conclusion: No hard and fast rule can be laid down; discretion must be exercised judicially according to the circumstances of each case.

Final Conclusion: The Full Bench affirmed the breadth of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, held that interlocutory orders of the kind referred could in principle be revised, and emphasized that interference remains a matter of judicial discretion guided by settled principles rather than rigid exclusionary rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code permits revision of interlocutory orders where the statutory conditions are met and the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity, but the revisional power must be exercised judicially on the facts of each case.

---