Short Note : 1. The defendant tenant in a suit for eviction pleaded that the contractual tenancy could be terminated by a notice of six months. That was the oral agreement he said, which took place in the presence of Mukundilal Seth, now in Delhi, and Shriram Sharma, now in Gurgaon. The defendant applied to the Court for issuing commissions to examine these witnesses. The Court rejected the application since the Court felt that the application had been made only to protract the trial. Held : The revision must be dismissed on a short ground that the impugned interlocutory order is not ‘a case decided’ within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Gambhir Mal v. George Anthony, AIR 1934 All. 37 (2), Mirja Iqbal Ali v. Dr. S. Abdul Ali, AIR 1942 Oudh. 344, relied on. 2. While this Court dismisses the revision, it would only draw the attention of the Court below to Order 26, rule 18-B, CPC, where under the Court could issue commissions and fix time limit of, say, a period of three months for their return, period not to be extended for any reason whatsoever and thereby averting the possibility of the case being remanded by the appellate Court in the event that Court felt that the evidence of those witnesses would not have been shut out. The trial Court may still exercise, discretion in favour of the defendant if the trial is expected to last for about 3 months. Revision dismissed.