JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J—In this revision petition the defendant has challenged the order of the Sub Judge, Kangra, dated 28th April, 1981 by which the learned Sub Judge has dismissed the application of the defendant-petitioner for appointment of a local commissioner in a civil suit. 2. The brief facts are that Hari Ram plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land bearing khasra No. 492, measuring 0-02-36 situate in Mohal Dhar, Mauza Mundla, against Gulaba defendant. It was alleged that the old khasra number of the disputed khasra No. 492 was 540 min, and the plaintiff claiming ownership of khasra No. 492 filed this suit treating the defendant as a trespasser. The suit was contested by the defendant and one of the pleas of the defendant in the written statement is that the old khasra number of 492 was not 540 min. According to the defendants allegations the old khasra number was 541. Upon the pleadings of the parties the court framed the following issues on 6th March, 1979: "1. Whether the suit is with time ? O. P. P. 2. Whether the plaint is properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? O. P. P. 3. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as alleged ? O. P. P. 4. Whether the defendant is in illegal possession of the suit land ? O. P. P. 5. Whether act and conduct of the plaintiff is bar to the present suit ? O. P. D. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? O. P. D. 7. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession ? – O. P. D. 8. Relief." An application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the defendant that a local commissioner be appointed who may locate the previous khasra number of the present disputed khasra No. 492, as, according to the defendant, the plaintiff had wrongly described the previous khasra number as 540 instead of 541, This application was rejected by the learned Sub Judge on 2nd June, 1980, on the ground that no issue to that effect had been framed. 3. 3. Subsequently, another application was moved by the defendant under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Order 14 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code on 1st November, 1980, praying that an additional issue be framed to the following effect: "If issue No. 3 is proved, whether khasra No. 492 is a part of old khasra Number 541 rain of Jamabandi H 67 and 68 owned and possessed by the defendant, is so, its effect on the present suit." Vide order, dated 16th December, 1980, this application was allowed and an additional issue to the following effect was framed : "3. (a) Whether suit land viz. khasra No. 492 is a part of old khasra No. 541 as alleged and if so its effect ? O. P. D." Thereafter the case was listed for defendants evidence on 5th March, 1981. 4. The defendant agiain filed an application on 20th February, 1981, praying that a local commissioner be appointed to locate khasra number 492 and to find out as to whether it is a part of old khasra number 541 (wrongly written as 441 in the application), and it was further prayed that the local commissioner should locate and report as to which khasra numbers are the old khasra number of khasra No. 492 and also to prepare a tatima for the same. This application was also contested and the learned Sub Judge, vide his order dated 28th April, 1981, dismissed the same. 5. I have heard Shri Ramesh Chand Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner and Shri S. S. Kanwar, Advocate, for the respondent. 6. Shri S. S. Kanwar, Advocate raised an objection that this revision petition is not maintainable under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to him, the present order does not fall within the definition of a "case decided". He has referred to Baldevdas Shiv Lal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd [AIR 1970 SC 406] and Smt. Harvinder Kaur and another v. Godha Ram and another [AIR 1979 Punjab & Haryana 76] in support of his contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the impugned order has, in fact, seriously adjudicated upon the rights and obligations of the parries in controversy, and that the present revision petition is maintainable and the impugned order fell within the definition of the word "case decided". The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the impugned order has, in fact, seriously adjudicated upon the rights and obligations of the parries in controversy, and that the present revision petition is maintainable and the impugned order fell within the definition of the word "case decided". It was also contended that according to the facts available on the record, the impugned order is highly unjust and inequitable and that the learned Sub Judge has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. 7. In Baldevdas Shivlal and anothers case (supra) their Lordships have observed in para 10 of the judgment: "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 Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure." The judgment in the case of Baldevdas Shivlal and another (supra) was given in view of the language of unamended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows : "115. 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 5 jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have 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." By Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976) Section 115 after amendment reads as follows : "115. (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 have 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." Thus in view of the amendment and addition of explanation in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Baldevdas Shivial (supra) is not very relevant and will not be applicable in this case. By the explanation added to Section Ii5, it has been made clear that an order made in the course of a suit will be deemed to be within the language of a "case decided." 8. The next case, Smt. Harvinder Kaur and another (supra) is distinguishable and it was decided by the Honble Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in view of the peculiar facts of that case. The next case, Smt. Harvinder Kaur and another (supra) is distinguishable and it was decided by the Honble Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in view of the peculiar facts of that case. In para 13 of the judgment, the Honble Judges have observed: "Before parting with the judgment, it may, however, be made clear that it cannot as a general rule be laid down that in no case a revision would lie against an interlocutory order passed under any other provision of Order 26, and that it would be on the facts of each case that it will have to be found out whether the interlocutory order, against which a revision is sought to be filed, has adjudicated for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy or not." Even according to the observations of the Honble Judges made in the two cases Smt. Harvinder Kaur and another (supra) and Baldevdas Shivlal (supra; if some right or obligation of parties in controversy is decided by the court then such an order will fall within the definition of the word "case decided". 9. According to the facts of this case, which are quite distinguishable from the case of Smt. Harvinder Kaur and another (supra), I am of the opinion that the impugned order definitely adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties in controversy and as such this order will be deemed to be within the purview of the word "case decided" under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is thus repelled. 10. The learned Sub Judge in the impugned order, dated 28th April, 1981, has stated that an application for appointment of a local commissioner was dismissed on 2nd June, 1980, and that the statement of Ram Rattan (D.W.5) (a retired revenue consolidation officer) was cot allowed to be recorded as an expert on the ground that the witness is not in possession of the revenue records and had gone to the spot without any authority or order of the court. The learned Sub Judge has further mentioned that the defendant could produce necessary evidence for proving this issue. 11. The learned Sub Judge has further mentioned that the defendant could produce necessary evidence for proving this issue. 11. After going through the records of the case and the impugned order, dated 28th April, 1981, I find that the defendant had pleaded that the sold khasra number of present khasra No. 492 is not 540, as alleged by the plaintiff. The ownership of the plaintiff is denied on the ground that the old khasra number of 492 is, in fact, 541, which is the ownership of the defendant. The defendant has also taken many other pleas to defeat the plaintiffs suit, but for the disposal of the present revision petition, these pleas are not material. The defendant in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of a local commissioner which was rejected on 2nd June, 1980, as stated before, on the ground that there is no specific issue. Thereafter the defendant wanted to prove his allegations by producing Shri Ram Rattan (DW5) a retired revenue consolidation officer. The statement of this witness was not allowed to be recorded on the grounds that this witness is not supposed to be in possession of revenue records for effecting measurements and that he had gone to the spot without any authority or order of the court. Then on an application of the defendant a specific issue was framed by the Sub-Judge on 16th December 1980, which has been re-produced earlier. Thus the controversy between the parties regarding the boundaries and location of khasra No. 492 was put in the form of a specific issue. The defendant is these circumstances had no other alternative except to file an application for appointment of a local commissioner because the oral evidence of the defendant to rebut the correctness of the revenue entries had already been disallowed. The dispute in the case is regarding the location of previous khasra number of the present khasra No. 492 and, therefore, in the interest of justice the appointment of a local commissioner was more just, reasonable and equitable. If the order rejecting the application for appointment of a local commissioner is allowed to stand then it is likely to result in failure of justice to the defendant-petitioner. If the order rejecting the application for appointment of a local commissioner is allowed to stand then it is likely to result in failure of justice to the defendant-petitioner. A perusal of the order shows that the learned Sub Judge has clearly acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and, therefore, I find it a fit case to interfere on the revisional side. 12. In view of the above discussion, this revision petition is accepted, the order of the Sub judge dated 28th April 1981, is set aside and the application of the defendant petitioner for appointment of the local commissioner is allowed. The records of the case will be sent back to the Sub Judge who will now appoint some experienced man as the local commissioner at the expense of the defendant. 13. The parties are directed to appear in the court of Sub Judge, Kangra, on 7th December, 1981. Revision allowed.