M. C. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) BY these revision petitions under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the revisionists, who are amongst the defendants in the suit, challenge an order dated June 28, 1985, passed by the Civil Judge-III, Dehradun, whereby he allowed an application moved by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for amendment of their written statement. ( 2 ) I have heard A. B. Saran, learned counsel for the revisionists. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents. ( 3 ) BANK of Baroda, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,50,356. 40 and Rs. 97,062. 60 against the defendants. It included the borrowers Bindra Dairy Farms, A. S. Bindra and Bir Singh Bindra as defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. These defendants carried on the business of dairy farming for which they had raised loans from the plaintiff-bank and had got their cattle insured with respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of its dues from defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and added the insurance companies also as defendants claiming that they are also liable and responsible up to the extent of the insured claim amounts in terms of the policies. By the impugned amendment, which was, of course, belated, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 added a plea that to the extent of Rs. 19,500 and Rs. 6,000 the claims have to be decreed against defendants Nos. 6, 4 and 5, respectively. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists contended that the period for making a claim by the insured on the insurance companies had already expired and the amendment was, therefore, barred by time. His claim, that by the amendment, the defendant borrowers want a decree in their favour which they have no right. ( 5 ) HAVING heard Saran at length, I find that the amendment does not seek a decree in favour of the defendants. What it says is that to the extent of Rs. 19,500 and Rs. 6,000 the plaintiffs claim should be decreed against defendants Nos. 6, 4 and 5 respectively. The plaintiff Bank of Baroda had already made its claim against all the defendants in the suit and its claim did not depend on any amendment in the written statement by the defendants. 19,500 and Rs. 6,000 the plaintiffs claim should be decreed against defendants Nos. 6, 4 and 5 respectively. The plaintiff Bank of Baroda had already made its claim against all the defendants in the suit and its claim did not depend on any amendment in the written statement by the defendants. In my view, therefore, the nature of the order passed by the court below is merely interlocutory and is not such that if varied or reversed, it would finally dispose of the suit and if allowed to stand would result in failure of justice or would cause an irreparable injury to the parties against whom it was made. Such an interlocutory order can be challenged in an appeal if required. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists place reliance on K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. v. Alliance ministries, AIR 1995 SC 1768 . That was a case in which the plaintiff by amendment after several years sought the relief of specific performance and the Honble Supreme Court held that such an amendment cannot be allowed. That case is patently distinguishable. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons, I find that this revision petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. .