S.K. MAL LODHA, J —This is a plaintiffs revision under section 115, C.P.C directed against the order dated September 27, 1980 of the learned Civil Judge,, Pali by which he dismissed the application under O. XIV, r. 5 C.P.C. on September 6, 1980 which was filed on behalf of the guardian-ad-litem of the minor defendants No. 2,3,7 and 8 for framing of the additional issues. 2. The defendant-non-petitioners instituted a suit for redemption of mortgage and rendition of accounts on January 8, 1973. The plaint is dated October 11, 1972. The suit was resisted by defendants No 1 and 4 on various grounds by filing a written statement dated January 10. 1974. A rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs on February 28, 1974. On behalf of minor defendants No. 2,3,7 and 8. guardian-ad-litem tiled the written statement on July 15, 1973. The learned Civil Judge framed as many as 18 issues inclusive of the relief. Issue No. 13 relating to the court fee was decided in favour of the defendants and the plaintiffs were directed to make up the deficit court fee and amend the plaint. On January 5, 1979, defendant No. 2 Harish moved an application under O. XXXII, rr. 3 and 4 read with Sec. 151, C.P.C. praying that as he has become major one month before the date of the application, he may be permitted to file the written statement and his guardian-ad-litem may be removed and in the light of the written statement that may be filed by him, issues may be struck and evidence may be recorded. On February 3, 1980, the learned Civil Judge directed that defendant No. 2 may participate in the proceedings and if he likes, he may also examine himself as witness and produce evidence. SB. Civil Revision No. 101/80 : Harish vs. Somnath was filed against that order. The revision was dismissed on May 7, 1980. After dismissal of the revision, on September 6, 1980, an application was moved by defendant No. 2 Harish under O. XIV, r. 5, C.P.C. praying that in view of the written statement that was filed on behalf of the minor defendants by the guardian-ad-litem, necessary additional issues arising out of that were not framed and, therefore, issues No. 1 to 6 stated in the application may be framed. This application was opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs by filing a reply on September 20, 1980. The learned Civil Judge, by his order dated September 27, 1980, dismissed the application. Defendant No. 2 has come to this Court in revision as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the parties stated that the revision may be disposed of at the admission stage. This Court, therefore, ordered that the revision will be taken up for hearing after service on non-petitioners No. 4 to 10. Record has been received. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Calla that revision against the order dated September 27, 1980 of the Civil Judge is not maintainable as it is an order dismissing the application under O. XIV, r 5, C.P.C. and the dismissal as such has not determined the rights and obligations of any of the parties. This preliminary objection is opposed by Mr. B.M. Singhvi. He contends that when the application under O. XIV, r. 5, C.P.C. was dismissed, it certainly amounts to adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy and that, in any case, in view of Explanation added to Sec. 115, C.P.C. by the C.P.C. Amendment Act (No. 104 of 1976) the order dismissing an application under O. XIV r. 5, C.P.C. comes within the ambit of the expression case which has been decided. On the basis of M/s. Sadhu Ram vs. Ghanshyam Dass (1), Chotanagpur Banking Assn. vs. Rajib Nath (2) Khamana vs. Surjan (3) and Bishan Singh vs. Murti Shivji (4) Mr. Singhvi contended that the order dismissing the application under O. XIV, r 5, C.P.C. whereby refusing to frame additional issues is a case decided, and therefore, the revision against such an order is competent. 6. I proceed to examine the preliminary objection first. 7. Section 115, C.P.C. reads as under:- "115. Revision. Singhvi contended that the order dismissing the application under O. XIV, r 5, C.P.C. whereby refusing to frame additional issues is a case decided, and therefore, the revision against such an order is competent. 6. I proceed to examine the preliminary objection first. 7. Section 115, C.P.C. reads as under:- "115. Revision. (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such Subordinate Court appears — (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to halve failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: 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. (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. Explanation:- In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding." In S.S. Khanna vs. F.J. Dillon (5), it was observed as under : "The expression case is a word of comprehensive import : it includes civil proceedings other than suits, and is not restricted by anything contained in the section to the entirety of the proceedings in a civil court. To interpret the expression case as an entire proceeding only and not a part of a proceeding would be to impose a restriction upon the exercise of power of superintendence which the jurisdiction to issue writs and the supervisory jurisdiction are not subject, and may result in certain cases in denying relief to an aggrieved litigant where it is most needed, and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice." The decision was considered in Bedeco Das vs. Filmistan Distributors (6), wherein, Shah, J., as he then was, speaking for the Court, laid down as under : "A case may be said to be decided, if the court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy ; every order, in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Sec. 115." In Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills vs. Ladho Ram & Co. (7), it was observed by a learned single Judge as under: "Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down rules for the settlement of issues and determination of suits on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Under r. 1 issue arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. Rule 2 gives a direction to the court to decide a particular issue as a preliminary issue. Rule 3 gives a discretion to the court to frame issues on the basis of the allegations made on oath by the parties or by the persons present on their behalf or made by the pleaders of such parties, the allegations made in the plaint or in answer to interrogatories delivered in the suit and on the basis of the documents produced by either party. Rule 4 gives power to the court to examine witnesses or documents before framing issues. By rule 5 power is conferred on the court to amend and strike out issues Further power is given under rule 5 to frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit or as may be necessary for determining the matter in controversy between the parties. The power to frame additional issues is a discretionary power of the trial court. Additional issues may be framed if the court thinks necessary for determining the matter in controversy. The power to frame additional issues is a discretionary power of the trial court. Additional issues may be framed if the court thinks necessary for determining the matter in controversy. By an order refusing to frame additional issues or allowing an application for framing of additional issues no right or obligation of the parties in controversy is adjudicated upon by the court. It is a matter only of procedure. The Court, after examining the pleadings and other material on record as required under rule 3, may frame the issues. Since no right or obligation of a party is determined by an order refusing to frame additional issues such an order cannot be held to be deciding a case between the pat ties and in my opinion, it would not come within the ambit of the expression case which has been decided. Similar would be the position in regard to an order by which additional issues are framed or amended." The full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s. Sadhurams case (1) considered the S.S. Khannas case (5) and Bedeco Dasss case(6)and took the view that a revision lies to the High Court against an order of a subordinate court refusing to change the onus of an issue. Explanation to section 115, C.P.C makes it abundantly clear that the expression any case which has been decided also includes an order made in a suit an other proceeding. The High Court has, therefore, power to rectify an order of a subordinate court at any stage of the suit or proceeding. 8. In the light of the principles of law annunciated in the above authorities of the Supreme Court the question has to be decided whether an order dismissing the application under O. XIV, r. 5, C.P.C. falls within the words case decided. The dismissal of the application under O. XIV, r. 5 whereby refusing to frame additional issues, in my opinion, would certainly be an adjudication in the course of a suit of some right or obligation of the parties in controversy and so according to the law annunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, such an order would fall within the words "case decided", as it has been passed in the course of a suit. I respectfully express my dissent with Modi Spg.s case (7) and hold that a revision is maintainable. I respectfully express my dissent with Modi Spg.s case (7) and hold that a revision is maintainable. The order dismissing the application under O. XIV, r. 5. C.P.C. whereby refusing to frame additional iasues arising out of the pleadings of the parties can be revised provided the conditions laid down in the proviso appended to sec. 115, C.P.C. are satisfied. I, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection raised by Mr. L.R. Calla, learned counsel for non-petitioners No. 1 to 3. 9. This brings me to the merits of the revision. 10. I have carefully examined the order of the learned Civil Judge by which he declined to frame additional issues. In view of the averments made in the plaint and the written statement of defendants No. 2, 3, 7, and 8, 1 am of opinion that issues No. 1, 2, 3, and 6 stated in the application do arise and the learned Civil Judge while declining to frame these additional issues has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him or at any rate, has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity. So far as issue No. 5 stated in the application is concerned, there is no necessity for framing this issue as issue No. 2 has already been framed covering its subject matter. Having considered the mortgage deed and the pleadings, 1 am of opinion that it is not necessary to frame issue No. 4 I am also satisfied that if the issues which have been referred to above are not framed and the order under revision is allowed to stand, it would cause irreparable injury to defendant No. 2. 11. I, therefore, allow this revision petition in part and modify the order dated September 27, 1980 of the Civil Judge and direct him to frame issues No. 1,2,3, and 6 stated in the application dated September 6, 1980. The learned Civil Judge will take further proceedings in the suit in accordance with law. The parties will be free to lead evidence in regard to the aforesaid additional issues. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.