G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-10-1977 passed on I A. No. III in O. S No 811 of 1977 on the file of the First Addl. , First Munsiff, bangalore, allowing the application for appointment of a Commissioner. ( 2 ) THE only point that arises for my consideration in this revision petition is :"whether the order appointing a commissioner under O. 26, R. . 9 of CPC. amounts to a case decided ?" ( 3 ) THE Explanation added by the amending Act of 1976 to the Code of civil Procedure in S. 115 reads :"in this section the expression 'any case which has been decided' includes any order made, or any or- der deciding an issue, in the courseof a suit or other proceeding. "that does not mean that a case decided includes any order, including e. g. , an order granting an adjournment. That has to be read with the earlier part of the section contained in the proviso, which reads :"provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding except where (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision,-would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order if allowed to stand, would occasion, a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. " only in such a case, the order can be interfered with by this Court and the order oan be said to represent a case decided. ( 4 ) THIS expression came in for consideration before a Division Bench of the punjab H;gh Court in the case of Therein, their Lordships have observed : "the intention of adding the explanation to S. 115 by the 1976 amendment was only to define the words 'case decided', i. e. , that a revision would lie against an order passed during the course of a suit or other proceeding. But the Explanation cannot be given the meaning that every order made in the course of a suit or othe'r proceeding would be revisable. But the Explanation cannot be given the meaning that every order made in the course of a suit or othe'r proceeding would be revisable. The meaning that can be given to the Explanation is that an order made in the course of a suit or proceeding would be revisable only when it determines or adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. Thus, a revision would lie against an interlocutory order only if it determines or adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. However, even after the satisfaction of the aforesaid test, the power of revision would be exercisable by the high Court subject to the limitations put under sub-sec. (1) and the proviso to S. 115 CPC. It is further held in that view by their Lordships that an order refusing to issue commission under O. 26, R. 9 CPC. would not be revisable. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, instead of refusing the commissipn, it is allowed. That makes no difference. That cannot decide the rights or obligations of a party. Hence, it does not become revisable. Besides it cannot be said that it causes any failure of justice or irreparable injury to the other side because it has always the right to object to the Commissioner's report. It would be a piece of evidence at best as any other evidence. Hence, it cannot be said that an irreparable injury would be caused to the other side if the commissioner reports after inspection. Hence, I hold that there is no ground to interfere with the order in revision. ( 6 ) IN the result, therefore, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .