JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack refusing to frame an additional issue regarding valuation of the counter claim made by opposite party No. 1 (Defendant No. 1) and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit and dispose of the same as a preliminary issue. 2. The facts relevant for dispol of this civil revision are recounted below: The Petitioner (Plaintiff) instructed a suit against opposite party No. 1 for permanet judgment refering him from coming upon the suit land with an area or A.O. 48 decimals appertaining to plot No. 2108 in khata No. 351 of Cuttack Khasmahal included in holding No. 171 of the Cuttack Municipality. The suit was valued at Rs. 10840 for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and court-fee worth Rs. 11.25 was paid. Opposite party No. 1 filled his written statement in which besides giving reply to the facts stated in the plaint challenging under valuation of the suit, he made acounter claim for declaration of his title in respect of the suit land confirmation of his possession in respect thereof and for permanet injunction. He valued the counter claim at Rs. 100.00 for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and paid court-fee of Rs. 1150. The Petitioner in his rejoinder and additional rejoinder, besides giving his reply to the facts stated in the counter claim, averred that the valuation of the suit land as stated in the counter claim was grossly low. The valuation thereof at the market price would not be less than Rs. 15.000.00 per Gunth and so the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the counter claim. 3. On 16-9-1980 issues were settled. No issue, however, was framed with regard to the under-valuation of the suit as well as the counter claim. On 27-11-1981 opposite party No. 1 filed a petition to frame an additional issue, such as: Is the suit undervalued and is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court? 3. On 16-9-1980 issues were settled. No issue, however, was framed with regard to the under-valuation of the suit as well as the counter claim. On 27-11-1981 opposite party No. 1 filed a petition to frame an additional issue, such as: Is the suit undervalued and is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court? On the same day, after hearing both parties the learned Munsif recast the issue for the second time and while making some additions to issue No. 5 stated: The learned advocate for the Defendant did not press for adding the new issue that the suit is under-valued and is beyond the jurisdiction of the court as the suit is purely a suit for permanent injunction. Therefore, although opposite party No. 1 had taken a plea in his written statement that the suit was under valued and the court had no jurisdicrion to entrtain and dispose of the same, no issue to that effect was framed on the ground that opposite party No. 1 abandoned the same. 4. On 27-1-1981 the Plaintiff field a petition stating therein that in reply to the counter claim of opposite party No. 1 claiming title possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land, he had raised the plea in his rejoinders that the suit was grossly undervalued because at the prevalent market price its valuation would be more than Rs. 15,000.00, per Gunth in which case the court shall have no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit. Therefore, an additional issue should be framed regarding valuation of the counter claim and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain and try the same and further the issue should be tried and disposed of as a preliminary issue. Opposite party No. 1 not only filed a counter on 3-2-1981 to the aforesaid petition but also filed another petition on 2-5-1981 claiming therein that a further issue as to whether the suit has been undervalued or not should be framed. 5. Opposite party No. 1 not only filed a counter on 3-2-1981 to the aforesaid petition but also filed another petition on 2-5-1981 claiming therein that a further issue as to whether the suit has been undervalued or not should be framed. 5. After hearing both parties the learned Munsif in the impugned order rejected both the petitions on the ground that on 7-1-1981 when issues were recast for the second time in the presence of both parties and issues regarding valuation of the suit and counter claim and pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to try and dispose of the same were not framed, the same cannot be done at a later stage. Against the said order, the Plaintiff has preferred this revision, while opposite party No. 1 has not preferred a revision for rejection of his petition dated 2-5-1981. 6. This case is covered by a decision of this Court reported in Kishorelal Gupta v. Devilal Kalwar alias Gowalla AIR 1971 Ori 191 . After examining the scope and ambit of Order 14, Rules 1 and 5 of the CPC (Code for short) it was ruled: Thus it is clear that the duty to frame issues is put on the court and power inheres in the court to amend existing issues or frame additional issues on such terms as the court thinks fit. In exercise of this power the court while the arguments had begun, framed an additional issue and thought it fit to allow parties to lead evidence on the additional issue as it was necessary for determining the matter in controversy. The jurisdiction exercised by the court is in terms of Rule 5(1) of Order 14 of the Code. It is thus clear that the court in its discretion can recast and amend issues, as well as, frame additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties at any stage and at any time before passing a decree. In view of this settled position of law, the learned Munsif was clearly in error in refusing to frame additional issues with regard to the valuation of the suit, as well as, the counter claim and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. In view of this settled position of law, the learned Munsif was clearly in error in refusing to frame additional issues with regard to the valuation of the suit, as well as, the counter claim and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The suit is still pending and in exercise of his jurisdiction he shall be free to frame issues on the above matters which are in controversy and touching upon the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. 7. Despite the aforesaid finding, it is further necessary to examine if this civil revision is maintainable u/s 115 of the Code. The relevant portion of Section 115 of the Code is to the following effect: 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. In view of the above provision a revision would lie only if the impugned order would come within the expression any case which has been decided. The question as to what is a case decided came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a case reported in Baldevdas Shivlal and Another Vs. Filmistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. and Others. Shah, J. (as he then as) speaking for the Court opined; 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. In Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra Untwalia, J. observed: Many a time a question arose in India as to what the exact meaning of the phrase 'case decided' occurring in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Some High Courts had taken the view that it meant the final order passed on final determination of the action. Many other had, however opined that even interlocutory orders were covered by the said term. Some High Courts had taken the view that it meant the final order passed on final determination of the action. Many other had, however opined that even interlocutory orders were covered by the said term. This Court struck a mean and it did not approve of either of the two extreme lines. In Baldevdas Shivlal and Another Vs. Filmistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. and Others it has been pointed out (at P. 410): 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. We may give a clear example of an order in a Civil case which may not be a final order within the meaning of Article 133(1) of the Constitution yet it will not be purely or simply of an interlocutory character. Suppose for example a Defendant raises the plea of jurisdiction of a particular court to try the suit or the bar of limitation and succeeds, then the action is determined finally in that court. But if the point is decided against him the suit proceeds. In view of the principle laid down above, it is clear that every interlocutory order passed by the lower court during progress of the suit cannot be held to be a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code. A case can be said to be decided only if for the purpose of the, suit some right or obligation of the parties have been decided by the said order. It is, therefore, to consider whether an order passed by the lower court under. Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code framing additional issues or refusing to frame additional issues tantamounts to a 'Case decided' thereby adjudicating for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. 8. In Khazana v. Surjan AIR 1953 Bilaspur 33, it was held that the decision of the lower court rejecting the Defendant-Petitioner's application for framing the necessary issue is a decision on a substantial question in controversy between the parties affecting their rights and therefore amounts to a case decided. In Tara Chand Rattan Chand and Anr. v. Ved Prakash Keshori Lal and Anr. In Tara Chand Rattan Chand and Anr. v. Ved Prakash Keshori Lal and Anr. AIR 1953 Pepsu 120, a question as in this case directly arose and Teja Singh, C.J. speaking for the Court and relying upon an earlier decision reported in Dass v. Ram Saran Dass "Pepsu" L.R. 1(A), observed it to be incorrect to say that no interlocutory order passed in the course of a suit can be regarded as a 'case decided' and that whether or not a particular interlocutory order is a 'case decided' must depend upon the nature of the order and the circumstances of the case in which it was made. With regard to the order impugned before the Court refusing to frame an issue the learned Judge held as follows: Order 14, Rule 1(3), CPC lays down that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. This is a mandatory provision and has to be followed in each case, and in my opinion if the Court refused to do so, its order on the point must he regarded as a 'case decided'. The matter may be looked at from another point of view. Suppose one of the parties raises a material question of fact. By 'material', I understand the question which is not only relevant to the case but has an important bearing upon it. The other side denies the question but the Court refuses to put it in issue. The result would be that the party who raised the question will not be allowed to adduce any evidence thereon and virtually so far as that question is concerned, his case would stand decided against him. It may be mentioned here that the term 'case' mentioned in Section 115, CPC does not mean the whole case and is not synonymous with 'suit' or 'cause'. It includes the case of one party as distinct from that of the other party. In order to support this construction, I would refer to Rule 2 of Order 18, Code of Civil Procedure, in which each party is given the right to state his case. In Harish Vs. It includes the case of one party as distinct from that of the other party. In order to support this construction, I would refer to Rule 2 of Order 18, Code of Civil Procedure, in which each party is given the right to state his case. In Harish Vs. Som Nath and Others it was held as follows: In the light of the principles of law enunciated in the above authorities of the Supreme Court the question has to be decided whether an order dismissing the application under Order XIV, Rule 5, CPC falls within the words 'case decided'. The dismissal of the application under Order XIV, Rule 5 thereby 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 Jaw enunciated 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. A contrary view was however expressed in a decision reported in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., in which it was held that 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 particular, 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 materials 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 parties and so 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. In arriving at the aforesaid decision the learned Judge did not notice the decisions reported in Khazana v. Surjan AIR 1953 Bilaspur 33 and Tara Chand Rattan Chand Anr. v. Ved Prakash Keshori Lal and Anr. Similar would be the position in regard to an order by which additional issues are framed or amended. In arriving at the aforesaid decision the learned Judge did not notice the decisions reported in Khazana v. Surjan AIR 1953 Bilaspur 33 and Tara Chand Rattan Chand Anr. v. Ved Prakash Keshori Lal and Anr. AIR 1953 Pepsu 120, (supra). The learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case reported in Harish Vs. Som Nath and Others, dissented from the view expressed by the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case reported in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co.. I am in complete agreement with reasonings expressed in Tara Chand Rattan Chand and Anr. v. Ved Prakash Keshori Lal and Anr. AIR 1953 Pepsu 120 which has been quoted above and at the cost of repetition observe that if on the averments made in the pleadings by both the parties, the points of controversy between them are not pinpointed and brought to focus by framing appropriate issues, parties to the suit shall not he in a position to adduce evidence with regard to such issues, as a result of which material questions falling for determination in the suit shall remain undecided and the disputes shall remain unadjudicated, thereby, occasioning failure of justice, In other words, there is a direct connection between framing of proper issues and adjudication of disputes between the parries to a suit. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that an order refusing to frame appropriate issues is not a 'case decided', because rights and obligations of parties are thereby not adjudicated upon. With respect, I express my dissent with the view expressed in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., and hold that an order passed by the lower court refusing to frame appropriate issue or additional issues falls within the ambit of the expression a 'case which has been decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code and is revisable, provided the conditions laid down in the proviso to the said section are satisfied. In this case unless the additional issues are framed and the impugned order is allowed to stand it would occasion a failure of justice. In view of the above analysis, the revision petition is maintainable. 9. In this case unless the additional issues are framed and the impugned order is allowed to stand it would occasion a failure of justice. In view of the above analysis, the revision petition is maintainable. 9. A question was raised as to whether the issues relating to valuation of the suit and the counter claim for the purpose of payment of court-fee and pecuniary jurisdiction of the court shall be tried as preliminary issues according to Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code. Since, the issues have not yet been framed, it would be premature to express any opinion. This is a matter which can be decided by the learned Munsif if either of the parties or both shall make a move therefor after the additional issues are framed. Since this is suit of the year 1979, the learned Munsif shall do well to dispose of the same before the Civil Courts close for the Summer vacation during this year under intimation to this Court. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision is allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed