S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision application under Section 115 CPC, 1908 by the original defendant against the order dated 4. 4. 1996 of the Civil Judge, (SD), Third Court. Baroda in Special Summary Suit No. 544/93 under which the defendant-petitioner was granted conditional leave to defend the suit. ( 2 ) THE respondent, original plaintiff, a partnership firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act filed a suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 18,06,259-90 being the amount of interest on the goods supplied by it to the defendant-petitioner somewhere on June, 1993. The suit has been filed under the provisions of Order 37, CPC, 1908. ( 3 ) THE defendant-petitioner put appearance in the summary suit and filed an application for grant of leave to defend Ex. 12. In application for leave to defend, the defendant-petitioner set out ground that the summary suit is not maintainable. It has not been urged that the principal amount had already been paid and the final settlement was arrived at between the parties in respect of transaction and no outstanding dues remained. It is urged that there is no agreement to charge interest as claimed in the suit. The plea of limitation has also been taken. It is submitted that the company that is the defendant has been declared as a sick company under the provisions of Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 by the Board of Industrial and Financial reconstruction, the suit is not maintainable under Section 22 of the said Act. ( 4 ) UNDER the impugned order, the learned trial Court has granted conditional leave to defendant-petitioner and hence, this civil revision application before this Court. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant- petitioner has raised all those contentions which have been raised in the application of leave to defend. Further he cited for the consideration of this Court, two decision of the apex Court in the case of Gram Panchayat v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and in the case of Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. S. I. I. Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. 2 and one of this court in the case of New Ashapuri Society ltd. v. Arvind Kumar3. Further he has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers v. Basic equipment Corporation4. v. Arvind Kumar3. Further he has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers v. Basic equipment Corporation4. ( 6 ) REPLYING to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contended that the learned Trial Court in the facts of this case has not committed any error of jurisdiction in granting conditional leave to defend to the defendant-petitioner. It has next been contended that the amount of price of goods supplied to the defendant-petitioner by the plaintiff-respondent has not been paid in time. There was a stipulation in invoices raised by the plain- tiff-respondent of the goods supplied to the defendant-petitioner that in case within the specified period of price of bills are not paid then the party shall liable to pay interest on this amount. The defendant-petitioner has taken long time to make payment of price of goods supplied by it to the plaintiff-respond- ent, and as such, the plaintiff has rightly filed the summary suit for recovery of the amount of interest. It has not been contended that even if it is taken that the order impugned in this revision application falls within the four corners of clause (c) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 15, cpc still as it is not pleaded in the revision application and not contended during the course of arguments, it will not occasion in failure of justice or will cause any injury to the defendant-petitioner in case the same is allowed to stand by this Court. Lastly, it is urged that it is only an interlocutory order and the suit has not been finally disposed of. It is a case "where conditional leave to defend has been granted and at the most to protect the right of the defendent-petitioner this Court may give a specific direction that 25% of claim of suit subject to deposit thereof, leave to defend has been granted to the defendant-petitioner may not be paid to the plaintiff-respondent. It is contended that the company, the defendant-petitioner, has been declared to be sick company way back on 1. 6. 1992 and though more than six years have passed still what ultimately happened in those proceedings has not been made known to this Court. It is contended that the company, the defendant-petitioner, has been declared to be sick company way back on 1. 6. 1992 and though more than six years have passed still what ultimately happened in those proceedings has not been made known to this Court. The provisions of Section 22 of the Act, 1985 no where provides that the suit is not maintainable and nowhere totally bars the filing of the suit but it provides that it can be done with the consent of the board or as the case may be, the Appellate authority under the Act, 1985. ( 7 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) I find sufficient merits in this contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent that the impugned order is only an interlocutory order which has not decided the civil suit finally. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is for the claim of interest on the delayed payment of cost of the goods supplied to it by the defendant-petitioner. The defendant-petitioner may be declared to be sick industry but the learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced on record of this civil revision application what now ultimately transpired in those proceedings this company has been declared to be sick industry way back in June, 1992 but the latest position of those proceedings has not been produced on the record of this civil revision application by the defendant-petitioner. Leave to defend has been granted by the learned Trial court to the defendant-petitioner. So it is not the case where leave to defend has not been granted. Only grievance of the defendant-petitioner is that conditional leave to defend has been granted and it being a sick industry, is not in a position to deposit the amount as ordered to be deposited subject to which leave to defend has been granted. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has tried to raise a contention also that this order of grant of leave to defend amounts to recovery of money or execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company. I do not consider it to be appropriate at this stage to go on this issue in this civil revision application. I do not consider it to be appropriate at this stage to go on this issue in this civil revision application. Similarly, I do not consider it to be necessary to go on the other issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this civil revision application. The reason is very obvious. In my view, this revision application is not maintainable as it cannot be said to be a case decided. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show what to say to establish that in case the impugned order is allowed to stand it will occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the defendant-petitioner. I find sufficient merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that in the revision application even there is no whisper that in case this order of Trial Court is allowed to stand it will occasion a failure of justice or will cause injury to 1999 (3) Nation the defendant-petitioner. During the course of arguments also, learned counsel for the petitioner felt contended to urge that the petitioner has been declared to be sick industry and the suit was not maintainable. ( 9 ) THIS Court in the case of Appex Petro chemicals Ltd. v. Indo Nissan Oxo Chemical, civil Revision Application No. 1216/98 (Coram : D. C. Srivastava, J.) decided on 17. 9. 1998 held that the order under which conditional leave to defend is granted does not fall under the category of case decided, it is not revisable under Section 115, CPC. Proviso to section 115, CPC provides that this 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 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. So even if the case of the petitioner falls under any of the clauses (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 115, CPC, 1908 still in case the order impugned is set aside it would not have finally disposed of the suit. So even if the case of the petitioner falls under any of the clauses (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 115, CPC, 1908 still in case the order impugned is set aside it would not have finally disposed of the suit. So the case of the defendant-petitioner does not fall under clause (a) of proviso or subsection (1) of Section 115. Not only this, under clause (b) to aforesaid proviso, the case of defendant-petitioner does not fall. As stated earlier, the petitioner has failed to state what to say to satisfy this Court, that in case the order of the Court below is allowed to stand it will occasion a failure or justice or cause irreparable injury to the defendant-petitioner. ( 10 ) IN view of the fact that this revision application deserves to be decided only with reference to provisions as contained in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115, the case law on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner need not be referred to and discussed in the judgment. ( 11 ) IN the result, this civil revision appli cation fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted by this Court stands vacated. No order as to costs. Revision Application dismissed. .