ORDER A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. All the three writ petitions under Ari 227 of the Constitution of India were filed before the learned single Judge who has referred the same for decision by the Division Bench due to the importance of the matter on the point whether a revision lies before the District Court or not. The District Court by its order dated 22.4.1996 set aside the order passed by the trial Court and directed appointment of Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the case, it would be proper to point out at the outset that earlier as per the M.P. Amendment Act, power under Section 115 C.P.C. was given to the District Court. Subsequently, by an amendment, that power has been restored back to the High Court. The present case was decided by the District Court under Section 115 C.P.C. as the District Court had, at the relevant time, jurisdiction to decide the matter in revision petition. 3. Brief facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that there is a land in Patwari Halka No. 8 bearing khasra No. 1150/2 area O.20 acre and Khasra No. 1150/1 area 0.20 acre in village Sakti, District Bilaspur. (sic)ne land is alleged to be belonging to Subhash Chand and Kapurchand. They filed three suits against defendants Munnalal Pawar, Nirmal Prasad Yadav and Bahoran and sought mandatory injunction for demolition of construction raised by the defendants over the land and for possession thereof on the allegation that the defendants have trespassed over their land and raised construction. In those proceedings, an application was filed by the plaintiffs for appointment of Commissioner. The Trial Court dismissed the application for appointment of Commissioner. Aggneved by the order of the trial Court, a revision was filed before the District Court under Section 115 C.P.C. which came to be disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Bilaspur and he reversed the order passed by the trial Court and allowed the application in all the three suits directing that Revenue Inspector may inspect the spot and submit his report, as there was a conflict in two reports which were submitted before the trial Court in respect of demarcation of the area. 4. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Bilaspur dated 22.4.1996, three writ petitions were filed by Nirmal Prasad Yadav before this Court. During the course of arguments, before the learned single Judge, question arose whether the District Judge has jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for appointment of Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has referred this question whether the revision is maintainable before the District Court or not. The learned single Judge has referred to the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Harvinder Kaur and another Vs. Godha Ram and another (1) wherein it has been held that order refusing to appoint Local Commissioner is not a case decided and is not revisable. Learned Single Judge has also referred to a decision of Madras High Court in the case of Ponnusamy Pandaram vs. The Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangawar Sangam (2) in which a contrary view has been taken that such an order falls within the expression 'case decided' and therefore the order is revisable. We have heard learned counsel for parties. 5. It is true that there are two conflicting decisions 'one given by Punjab & Haryana High Court and the other by Madras High Court. In the decision of Madras High Court, decision given by Punjab & Haryana Court was considered. Learned counsel for parties have addressed the arguments on the question of maintainability of revision petition. We have examined the matter. Section 115 C.P.C. reads as under: 115. REVISION (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court sub-ordinate 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: 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 proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occassion 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 suit or other proceedings. A proviso was added in Section 115 C. P.C. by Amendment Act of 1976. It is true that section 115 C.P.C. lays down that the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto and if such subordinate court appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or 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. By M.P. State amendment, this power was given to the District Court. However, as already pointed out, now that power has been restored back to the High Curt. The Proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 115 provides 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 the order, if it has been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. Explanation to Sec. 115 provides that 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 proceeding. Therefore, the Legislature itself has decided the expression as to what would mean by expression "any case which has been decided" used in sub-section (1) of Section 115 C.P.C. The expression which has been decided has been widened by the inclusive definition that it would include any order made, or any order deciding any issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding. Thus, the expression means any order deciding any issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding and that can be subject to a revision. It is further circumscribed by a proviso which says in what cases it can be interfered by way of revision. Proviso provides that the High Court shall not under Section 115, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or proceeding except where the order had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or in case it is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.Therefore, it is for the revisional Court to see that in which case such an order if allowed to stand, would occasion failure of justice. 6. What would amount the failure of justice cannot be determined. It is a matter to be decided in each and every case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to in what cases, it would amount to failure of justice. Therefore, the expression 'would occasion failure of justice' is of a very wide significance and gives very wide powers to the District Court to interfere in the matter arising from any proceeding which can occasion failure of justice. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the expression 'would occasion a failure of justice' is of very wide amplitude and an order can be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in case the Court is satisfied that if such an order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the expression 'would occasion a failure of justice' is of very wide amplitude and an order can be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in case the Court is satisfied that if such an order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice. Our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in the case of Kurban Hussain Vs. Smt. Asmabai (1), wherein the petitioner applied to the trial Court for issue of Commission for spot inspection and the learned trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the spot inspection and the learned trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the spot inspection would merely disclose the present position and not the one which prevailed prior to the repairs. In that context, the Lordship observed that even where the conditions catalogued in section 115 of the Code for interference are satisfied, the revisional court may still, in the exercise of its discretion judicially in the circumstances of the case, decline to interfere. His Lordship observed that the order does not fall within the ambit of orders amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. His Lordship also observed that in his opinion the order passed by the trial Court does not call for interference and accordingly dismissed the revision. With great respect, this case does not decide the issue whether the order passed by the trial Court under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction or not. However, the Court disposed of the revision petition with the observation that the order does not fall within the ambit of orders amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. That does not decide the issue in one way or the other. 7. Our attention was also invited to a decision in the case of Ponnuswamy Pandaram Vs. The Salem Viayappamalai Jangamar Sangam (supra) where his Lordship has taken the view that the order passed by the trial Court declining to appoint Commissioner under Order 26 R. 9 C.P.C. falls within the expression 'case decided' and is revisable under Section 115 C.P.C. Our attention was also invited to a decision of this Court in the case of Asharani Vs. Narendra Kumar (2). His Lordship Justice Shivdayal, as he then was did not hold whether the revision lies or not. Narendra Kumar (2). His Lordship Justice Shivdayal, as he then was did not hold whether the revision lies or not. His Lordship only observed that under the amended Section 115 of C.P.C. the matter does not come under proviso (a) and for proviso (b), and it was observed that the dismissal of the revision will not occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury. As such, this case does not lay down whether the revision is maintainable or not. On the contrary, it appears that His Lordship held that a revision may lie if it falls under proviso (b) to sub-sec. (1) of Section 115 C.P.C. 8. Our attention was also invited to a decision of P & H High Court in the case of Smt. Harvinder Kaur and anothers Vs. Godha Ram and another (supra). In this case, their Lordship took the view that after amendment of the C.P.C. in 1976, the explanation does not mean that the order passed during the course of proceedings would be revisable. It only means that it is only revisable when it determines or adjudicates some rights of the parties in controversy. Therefore, it was observed that a revision would lie against an interlocutory order only if it determines or adjudicates same right or obligation of the parties in controversy. In the case of Ponnuswamy Pandaram (supra), His Lordship has disagreed with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was held that the expression 'case decided' in sec. 115 C.P.C. relates not only to the main suit but also to any other proceedings between the initiation of the suit and its final adjudication. It was observed that the object of the local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 is to collect evidence at the instance of the party who relies on the same and which evidence cannot be taken in Court but could be taken only from its peculiar nature on the spot. Therefore, it was observed, an order refusing to appoint a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 to local investigation and report is a 'case decided and hence revisable under Sec. 115 C.P.C. 9. Our attention was also invited to a decision in the case of Rangayya Vs. Govinda (1) wherein was held that the revision is maintainable. It was observed in paragraph 14 as under:- 14. Our attention was also invited to a decision in the case of Rangayya Vs. Govinda (1) wherein was held that the revision is maintainable. It was observed in paragraph 14 as under:- 14. As held by the Privy Council in Joychandlal Babu v. Kamalaksha Choudhary (2), if any arroneous decision of a subordinate Court results in that court failing to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law a case for revision arises. On account of the erroneous view taken by the learned Civil Judge that the appointment of Commissioner for local investigation as to the particulars of the alleged improvements and the value thereof, would amount to abdication or delegation of the powers of the Court, the learned Civil Judge declined to exercise his jurisdiction to appoint a Commissioner. Such failure to exercise jurisdiction justifies interferance in revision. In the case of K. Ragunath Rao Vs. Smt. Tumul Jailaxmi (3), question of maintainability of revision has not been decided. In the case of Ramkirpal Vs. Mahesh (4), the question was whether an order under Order 26 Rule 9 is revisable or not. It was observed that it can be examined whether the order promotes the ends of justice or hampers justice. Therefore, His Lordship observed that it depends on the facts of each case. A direct issue on the question of maintainability of revision also did not arise in this case. 10. After considering all cases cited by learned counsel for parties, we examined the matter and we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that under Section 115 C.P.C. no revision will lie against an order passed under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. It depends upon facts of each case whether the Court may interfere or may not. But it cannot be said that no revision against order passed under Order 26 Rule 9 is maintainable. As already pointed out that the expression 'would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury' apearing in Proviso (b) in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 115 C.P.C. is wide enough for the revisional court to interfere in the matter if it is satisfied that non-interference would occasion a failure of justice. What shall be the para-meter for interference, that cannot be put in straight - jacket as it will depend from case to case. The purpose of the Code is to advance justice. What shall be the para-meter for interference, that cannot be put in straight - jacket as it will depend from case to case. The purpose of the Code is to advance justice. Therefore, the provision should be read in the matter so as to promote interest of justice. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that any order passed under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. is revisable under Section 115 C.P.C. 11. Now coming to the present case, the learned trial Court did not exercise the jurisdiction for appointing Commission, and rejected the prayer. The order of the trial Court was revised by the revisional court on the ground that two Revenue Inspectors,' reports were conflicting and for advancement of cause of justice, it was held that it would be appropriate to get a report from the Revenue Inspector in order or adjudicate the matter whether the defendants have exceeded limits or encroached upon the land belonging to the plaintiffs. Therefore, it became necessary for court below to have correct demarcation of boundaries because there was conflicting report of two Revenue Inspectors. Hence, we are of the opinion that the power exercised was well within the power of the revisional Court and there is no illegality committed in exercise of this power by the lower Court. 12. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere in the three writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed