H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS defendant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18th august, 1995 delivered by the prl. Munsiff, mudhol rejecting the defendant-applicant's application under order 16, Rule 1, C. P. C. for summoning of Sri l. k. bhosle as a witness, in o. s. No. 26 of 1994. According to the applicant's case, he had to summon Sri l. k. bhosle as a witness in the following circumstances: that, there was question that whether u-form and statements were available in the file concerned. Applicant's case is that earlier he believed that all the concerned records statements would be available in the record. So the record was summoned from the survey officer of mudhol. At that time u-form was not traceable in the record. According to him, u-form that has been prepared and as well as statement recorded were not in the record, the defendant applicant considered it necessary that, Sri l. k. bhosle be summoned and his statement to be recorded in that regard to determine the question. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, the opposite party. The trial court rejected that application taking the view that records of survey office had been summoned, there is no u-form and there is no statement in that record. He further observed that plaintin has denied signing of u-form and stated that when he has not signed u-form there is no question of production of Sri l. k. bhosle, as witness. Having felt aggrieved from that Order, the defendant has filed this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) WHEN the case is listed for admission, appearance has been put on behalf of the respondent as well. I have heard Sri basavaraj kareddy, learned counsel for the revisionist applicant and Sri v. t. rayaraddi, learned counsel for the respondent as well. ( 2 ) WHEN the case is listed for admission, appearance has been put on behalf of the respondent as well. I have heard Sri basavaraj kareddy, learned counsel for the revisionist applicant and Sri v. t. rayaraddi, learned counsel for the respondent as well. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the applicant, it has been urged that as the plaintiff had denied the existence of u-form, the signing of the u-form and the alleged u-forms were not available on the record and when according to the plaintiff the statement and u-forms were prepared and statement was recorded but they were not available in the record, it was more necessary to summon that witness to prove whether u-form was prepared and signed by the parties and their statements were recorded. The learned counsel submitted that the learned trial court had acted illegally in taking a view that as the plaintiff had denied signing of u-form, the production of person who had prepared u-form, who got the u-form signed was not material and relevant. Learned counsel further submitted that taking erroneous decision as to relevancy and admissibility of the evidence of Sri l. k. bhosle, the learned trial court has acted illegally as well irregularly refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it to provide assistance to the plaintiff to summon him as witness in the court and as such the order suffers from the jurisdictional error. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the opposite party, Sri rayaraddi submitted that the order impugned does not amount to be case decided and it is simple written Order, an interlocutory order. Sri rayaraddi further submitted that there was no need to summon Sri l. k. bhosle and particularly when the record had been summoned from the city surveyor, mudhol. The documents having been produced but there is no such u-form and when u-form is not there, there is no question of recording the evidence of Sri l. k. bhosle and moreover when the plaintiff had himself denied the signing of such u-form. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel further submitted that plaintiffs evidence has been closed and the case is fixed for defendant's evidence. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel further submitted that plaintiffs evidence has been closed and the case is fixed for defendant's evidence. He submitted that the plaintiff has denied the signing of u-form and there is no question of u-form being available in the record and preparation of u-form and as such the learned trial court did not commit any error or illegality in not summoning Sri l. k. bhosle as witness. ( 6 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties respectively. The first question to be considered here in this case is whether the order impugned amounts to the case decided. The expression 'case decided' has been defined in explanation under Section 115 which 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, as if such subordinate court appear (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 proceedings, 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 proceedings, 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 proceedings". 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 proceedings". ( 7 ) A reading of the explanation reveals that in the Section, the expression 'case which has been decided' has been defined to include any order made or any order decided an issue in course of the suit or other proceedings. The expression 'order' as well has been defined under Section 2 (14) of the code as decision which does not amount to a decree. It is defined as the formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree. Infact, taking this definition in the light of the explanation read with Section 2 (14), it appears to me that the case decided means an order in the sense that it is an expression of a decision of the court on some matter i. e. , i mean to say with respect to some right either under substantive law or Rule procedural law. Even in interlocutory orders, some right is decided relating to the proceedings of the case may amount to case decided but, interlocutory orders where by no right of the party is decided may not amount to be a case decided so, in every case, it has been examined whether the order in question results in a decision of some right of a party to the case if not it has to be taken that by the Order, it may be taken as case decided. In matters of interlocutory orders, revision may not lie. Order 16 of the code, provides for summoning of attendance of witnesses. Under law, however party is entitled to produce an relevant and admissible evidence to prove his case, oral as well as documentary. Order 16 provides for assistance of the court in matters of summoning of the witness. It also provides that if witness has been summoned it has to put in appearance his evidence and his evidence may also be recorded if it is produced. Provision to that effect is contained in Rule 1 (a) of order 16. Nodoubt that Rule provides that it is subject to the Provisions under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1. It also provides that if witness has been summoned it has to put in appearance his evidence and his evidence may also be recorded if it is produced. Provision to that effect is contained in Rule 1 (a) of order 16. Nodoubt that Rule provides that it is subject to the Provisions under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1. ( 8 ) DEALING with order 16, rules 1 and 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been laid down by their lordships in the case of lalitha J. Rai v Aithappa Rai as under: "2. Order 16, rules 1 and 1 (a) adumbrate that the witnesses at the trial court are to be produced for examination by the parties by their filing the list, and omission thereof prohibits them to avail the assistance of the court to secure their attendance to give evidence to produce documents on their behalf. It is true that the legislature amended order 16, Rule 1 and added Rule 1 (a) to see that the undue delay should not be caused in the trial of the suit by filing list of witnesses or the documents at belated stage. Thereby, it envisages that on or before the date fixed by the court for settlement of issues and not later than 15 days after the date on which issues were settled, the parties are to file the list of such witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and they are required to obtain summons to such witnesses for their attendance in the court. On their failure to do the same, Rule 1 (a) says that they may without assistance of the court bring witnesses to give evidence or to produce documents. In other words, if they file to obtain the summonses through court for attendance of witnesses they are at liberty to have the witnesses brought without the assistance of the court. 3. It would, thus, be seen that the legislature did not put a total prohibition on the party to produce the witnesses or the production of the documents for proof of the respective case. Nonetheless, when they seek the assistance of the court, they are enjoined to give reasons as to why they have not filed the application within the time prescribed under Rule 1 of order 16. Nonetheless, when they seek the assistance of the court, they are enjoined to give reasons as to why they have not filed the application within the time prescribed under Rule 1 of order 16. It is seen that in the application it was stated by the husband of the appellant that they were under the bona fide impression that they have already filed the list of witnesses along with documents and that the mistake of non-filing the list was discovered when they were getting ready for the trial. It is not in dispute that the trial is yet to begin. In these circumstances, we think that the trial court committed illegality in refusing to receive the list for summoning the witnesses for adducing of evidence by the plaintiff. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the trial court and the high court are set aside. The list already furnished is a valid list. The trial court is directed to summon the witnesses for examination on behalf of the plaintiff. No costs. Appeal allowed". ( 9 ) A reading of this decision as well as the Provisions of order 16, Rule 1 indicates that party is entitled to take the assistance of the court for summoning the witness, where there is delay, if party submits reasons for summoning of the particular witness then court even if there is delay, the court should summon such witness, through courts. ( 10 ) THE application and the affidavit would indicate the reason in summoning of Sri l. k. bhosle at the stage of commencement of the evidence of the defendant. The evidence from the defendant's side is yet to be recorded. In the application it has been stated that the need for summoning of l. k. bhosle had arisen after the records were received from the survey officer by the court and their examination by the counsel i. e. the records indicate that form-u has not been signed it is indicated on the record and the plaintiff has denied the signing of the document. It was mentioned in an earlier statement made by the record and therefore records were summoned and concerned u-forms were not there, hence the question of summoning Sri l. k. bhosle had arisen. It was mentioned in an earlier statement made by the record and therefore records were summoned and concerned u-forms were not there, hence the question of summoning Sri l. k. bhosle had arisen. Learned counsel further submitted that Sri l. k. bhosle has been a material witness to be produced and prove that u-form whether was prepared and the statement of the plaintiff and the defendant and whether the parties including the plaintiff signed the form. ( 11 ) IN my opinion, the circumstances of the case, as mentioned in the application, indicate the reason why Sri l. k. bhosle was being summoned and why his evidence was considered to be relevant to be produced. When defendant was relying on the statements of the plaintiff recorded as alleged and plaintiff had denied those signatures in u-form and u-form and the statements were not available on record. The defendant was entitled to produce the other evidences to prove and establish the position and bring out this fact on that u-form has been prepared and statement of plaintiff was recorded etc. , In evidence whether the evidence of bhosle will be sufficient and reliable or not to establish the question of preparation of the document. But no doubt l. k. bhosle was a relevant witness. His evidence was relevant, l. k. bhosle was a material witness to be summoned. Therefore the party was entitled to get assistance of the court in summoning a witness who was not a private witness but a government employee. In my opinion, learned court below illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested, by rejecting the application of the defendant to summon Sri l. k. bhosle. The order impugned, in my opinion, has got tendency of causing injury to the defendant's case in course of proceedings. In my opinion, the revision deserves to be allowed. The order impugned passed by the learned munsiff is hereby set aside and the application moved by the defendant to summon l. k. bhosle in my opinion deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The learned trial court is hereby directed to summon l. k. bhosle as prayed in the application on defendant-applicants depositing the necessary charges whatsoever the trial court fixes. Costs of the revision ar made easy. It is expected that the parties will co-operate with the trial court for expeditious disposal of the case. The learned trial court is hereby directed to summon l. k. bhosle as prayed in the application on defendant-applicants depositing the necessary charges whatsoever the trial court fixes. Costs of the revision ar made easy. It is expected that the parties will co-operate with the trial court for expeditious disposal of the case. With these observations, revision is allowed as above. Costs made easy. --- *** --- .