ORDER K.M. Natarajan, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Munsif of Madurai Taluk, on a memo filed by the Advocate-Commissioner. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows: The revision petitioner filed the suit O.S. No. 927 of 1988 a against the respondent for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent and his men from digging pits adjoining the revision-petitioner's wall by accepting or breaking the revision-petitioner's eastern wall and causing damage to the revision petitioner's building. He also filed a petition for the appointment of a commissioner in I.A. No. 362 of 1988 to make a local inspections of the suit property and note down the physical features on the revision-petitioner's eastern side of the Eastern wall and also the respondent's property on the eastern side of the suit property. Accordingly an advocate-Commissioner was appointed and he after making a local inspection submitted a report. The petitioner filed objections, raising two specific objections. He also filed I.A. No. 1022 of 1988 for the re-issue of the commission with a direction to clarify the two mistakes set out in the memo of objections and rectify the same. The respondent agreed to the re-issue of the warrant and accordingly the court below directed re-issue of the warrant to the same Commissioner for the purpose of noting down the physical features as raised by the revision - petitioner in the objection to the commissioner's report and also to note down the physical features, if any, required by both the parties. At that stage, the commissioner filed a memo requesting the court to permit him to engage an Engineer in order to execute the warrant on the ground that the nature of the Commissioner's works involve the skill of an Engineer. The Commissioner has further stated that the petitioner in his memo of instructions has requested the commissioner to find out the thickness of the petitioner's wall at certain points in the disputed wall. The District Munsif passed no order to the effect that the Commissioner is directed to take the assistance of the qualified Engineer if necessary to execute the warrant. The commissioner or Engineer should not give any opinion about the stability of the building. The District Munsif passed no order to the effect that the Commissioner is directed to take the assistance of the qualified Engineer if necessary to execute the warrant. The commissioner or Engineer should not give any opinion about the stability of the building. The Commissioner was directed to state the nature, condition and state of affair of the building with the help of Engineer. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the case of the petitioner is that if the eastern wall is interfered with by scooping or breaking it will affect the support of the plaintiffs building and likely to be collapsed and cause damage and that the removal of any portion of eastern wall or digging pits adjoining the wall to raise columns a will amount to withdrawing the support of the plaintiffs building, the opinion of the engineer is necessary. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the some and submitted that it is for the court to decide the said question and it should not be delegated to the Engineer or Commissioner. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the court below even on the Commissioner's memo directed the Commissioner to state the nature, condition and state of affair of the building with the help of the Engineer; but only observed that he should not give any opinion about the stability of the building. As such, the petitioner is not in any way prejudiced by the order of the court below. The learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the revision itself is not maintainable at only a direction has been given on the memo filed by the commissioner. It would not attract Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Let us consider the maintainability of the revision first. In S.S.Khanna v. F.J. Dillon Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held: 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 proceeding in a civil court. 4. Let us consider the maintainability of the revision first. In S.S.Khanna v. F.J. Dillon Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held: 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 proceeding in a civil court. To interpret the expression "ease" as an entire proceeding only and not a part of a proceeding would be to impose a restriction upon the exercise of powers of superintendence which the jurisdiction to issue writ, 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. In the above quoted case, it was held: An interlocutory order holding that the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of money advanced to the defendant was not maintainable must be regarded as a "case which has been decided. In Baldevdas v. Filmistar Distributors relying on the earlier decision in Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dhillon is was held: To interpret the expression 'case' as an entire proceeding only and not a part of the proceedings imposes an unwarranted restriction on the exercise of powers of superintendent and may result in certain cases in denying relief to the aggrieved litigant where it is most needed and may result in the preparation of gross injustice. But every order of the court in the course of a suit does not amount to a case decided. A case any 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. By overruling an objection to a question put to a witness and allowing the question to be put, no case is decided". In the matter of B.H.P.& V. Ltd.v. Visakhapatnam A.I.R. 1985 A.P. 207 it was held: After the amendment of Section 115 in 1976 a civil revision petition against interlocutory order has to fulfil the new conditions contained is the proviso is addition to the conditions contained in Section 115(1)(a), (b), (c). In the matter of B.H.P.& V. Ltd.v. Visakhapatnam A.I.R. 1985 A.P. 207 it was held: After the amendment of Section 115 in 1976 a civil revision petition against interlocutory order has to fulfil the new conditions contained is the proviso is addition to the conditions contained in Section 115(1)(a), (b), (c). The words failure of justice in the proviso to Section 115 are used to lay down additional and independent condition for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Those words must, therefore, be given a different meaning from the meaning given a different meaning from the meaning given to Clauses (a),(b), and (c) of Section 115(1) and cannot be interpreted on merely duplicating the meaning which sub- Clause (a),.(b) and (c) of C1. (1) of Section 115, C.P.C. carry, Clause (a)(b) and (c) no Section 115(1), C.P.C. lay down legal and jurisdictional conditions. It follows that for entertaining a civil eviction petition against as interlocutory order it is not sufficient that the interlocutory order suffers from jurisdictional errors, but additionally it must also be bad for the reason of its occasioning failure of justice. It was also held in the same manner in "Ashokkumar v. Sanchitabai where it was held: Section 115, C.P.C. has been invoked by the petitioner. He must, therefore, show that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, how would it occasion failure of justice or on use irreparable injury to the petitioner. In the absence of any such allegation, this revision petition cannot stand". 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent also drew the attention of the court to the conditions which are necessary for invoking the revisional jurisdiction by referring the proviso of Section 115, C.P.C. and submitted that in this case it cannot be said the court has either failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Otherwise it has not been alleged in the grounds of revision any failure of justice on account of the said order. In the absence of failure of justice itself, it is sufficient to held that the revision is not maintainable. Otherwise it has not been alleged in the grounds of revision any failure of justice on account of the said order. In the absence of failure of justice itself, it is sufficient to held that the revision is not maintainable. On a careful analysis of the ratio laid down in the above decisions and the provisions contained in Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, I am at the view that in the instant case it cannot be said that the court adjudicated some right or obligation of the parties in controversy and no such impugned order can be regarded in case decided within the meaning of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. I am at the view that in the instant case it cannot be said that the court adjudicated some right or obligation of the parties in controversy and no such the impugned order can be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, it is only a more direction to the commissioner on his memo filed for the purpose of executing the warrant, and even in the memo the court directed the commissioner to take the resistance of a qualified engineer if necessary to execute the warrant and to state the nature, condition and state of affair of the building, But, however the court below directed the Commissioner and the Engineer not to express any opinion about the stability of the building. Certainly it is open to the Commissioner or the Engineer not to express any opinion about the stability of the building. Certainly it is open to the Commissioner or the Engineer to note all the relevant factors for the court to arrive at a conclusion about the stability of the building and the wall which are the subject matter of the suit. As already observed, there is absolutely nothing to show as to how the impugned order had occasioned failure of justice required under the proviso to Section 115, C.P.C. and on this ground, the revision is not maintainable. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the respondent drew the attention of the court to the decision reported in Gopal Das v. Jagannath Prasad A.I.R. 1938 A11.266 which is to the effect that the opinion of the Commissioner who was appointed under Section 75 and Order 26, C.P.C. is no evidence. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the respondent drew the attention of the court to the decision reported in Gopal Das v. Jagannath Prasad A.I.R. 1938 A11.266 which is to the effect that the opinion of the Commissioner who was appointed under Section 75 and Order 26, C.P.C. is no evidence. The said proposition cannot be disputed as any amount of opinion expressed by the commissioner or the Engineer will not bind the court, and ultimately it is for; the court to decide the issue involved in the suit. On this ground also, it cannot be said that the impugned order is vitiated or bad. There is absolutely no bar for the petitioner to examine the commissioner or the engineer in support of his case, before court, on the basis of the materials, physical features and the conditions noted by them. He cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any way by the direction given by the court to the commissioner not to express any opinion. For all these reasons, the revision fails and stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.