JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J. (Oral):- The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision petition. He is aggrieved by the dismissal of his application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The trial Court has taken the view that the facts and circumstances of the present case, the application is pre-mature pi before any evidence is adduced by both the parties, the application could it held that in every case such an application can be filed only after the parties dace evidence. 2. On a perusal of the order of the Court below. I do not find any error whatever in the said order. I am of the opinion that the Court below is right in preserving that the parties should first adduce evidence in support of their Respective cases in the present suit in order to warrant the appointment of a Commissioner. The facts of this case do not justify appointment of Commis-sioner now at this stage. Ultimately after the evidence is adduced, the court lay find no necessity at all for appointment of Commissioner or the Court may necessity to appoint Commissioner. At that stage, the court can decide whether a Local Commissioner should be appointed or whether the Court could lake a Local inspection of the property. That is a matter entirely left to the court below. 3. Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a proviso has been introduced by Act No. 104 of 1976. The proviso reads as follows: "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." 4. Clause (a) does not apply in this case as the order of the court below it had been made in favour of the petitioner herein would not have put an end to the suit. Hence, Clause (b) should alone be considered. Clause (a) does not apply in this case as the order of the court below it had been made in favour of the petitioner herein would not have put an end to the suit. Hence, Clause (b) should alone be considered. As regards clause I), it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the order of the Court below if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioner herein. The petitioner is certainly entitled to adduced as much evidence as possible or as necessary in support of his case. That right if the petitioner has not been taken away by the court below. It has only observed that the evidence should be adduced by the parties before considering the application for appointment of Local Commissioner. It is also evident from the order of the Court below that he has not completely shut off the question of appointment of the Commissioner. He has left it to be considered at a later stage, if necessary. What all he has stated is that the petition is not maintainable at this stage in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, if after adducing evidence, it appears necessary for either party to apply for appoint- ment of Commissioner, they can do so before the Court below. The said application shall be considered by the Court below on its merits in view of the observations contained in the order now passed in C.M.A. No. 183 of 1996. 5. Before parting with this case, I should refer to one aspect of the matter. At the time, when this case was admitted by this Court an argument was advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that the order of the Court below would not amount to a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of the said proposition, he has cited a decision in Harivinder Kaur & Anr v. Godha Ram & Am., AIR 1979 Punjab & Haryana76. Per contra, the petitioners counsel his cited a decision in Gulaba v Hah Ram, 1982 S.L.C. 85. In support of the said proposition, he has cited a decision in Harivinder Kaur & Anr v. Godha Ram & Am., AIR 1979 Punjab & Haryana76. Per contra, the petitioners counsel his cited a decision in Gulaba v Hah Ram, 1982 S.L.C. 85. In Gulaba v. Hah Ram, learned Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that an order dismissing an application for appointment of Local Commissioner made by the Subordinate Judge will amount to a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 C.P.C. A similar view has been expressed by the Madras High Court in Punmisamy Pandaram v. The Salem Vaivyappamalai Jangamar Sangam, AIR 1986 Madras 33. The Madras High Court has dissented from the view expressed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harvinder Kaurs case (AIR 1979 P. & H. 76). 6. In the view I have taken in this case on account of the proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is unnecessary for me to go into the question whether the order of the lower Court is a case decided or not. 7. In the circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed for the reasons already stated. There will be no order as to costs. C.M.P. No.61/97 In view of the dismissal of the revision petition, the present application is also dismissed and the interim order is vacated.