Heard Mr.N. Ibotombi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.N.Kerani Singh, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.N.Umakanta Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This revision application has been filed by the defendant in the O.S.No.51/94/20/95/20/97 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Manipur West challenging the order dated 29.12.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mani0pur in his Judl. Misc. Case No.134 of 2000. In the said Judl. Misc. Case No.134 of 2000, the said defendant ( the present revisionist) prayed for recalling DW 1(he himself) for enabling him to depose about some important facts said to have been mentioned in his counter claim and regarding which he had allegedly failed to depose earlier due to bonafide and inadvertent mistake. 3. In this connection, I have perused the written statement of the defendant filed in the said suit. In his written statement, the said defendant (the present revisionist) made a counter claim for a decree declaring the path described in the Schedule X of the written statement as a public path and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs in the suit (the present respondents) from disturbing the defendant, his men, people residing nearby and general public in using the said path for their ingress or egress. On perusal of the statement of the defendant (DW 1) recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Manipur West, it is ascertained that though he (DW 1) gave his statement regarding the facts of the said path being a public road, its length and breath, its use by him and others for the last many years, erection of fencing by the plaintiffs at a portion of it in the month of May, 1994 thereby leading to series of cases in between them, he (DW 1) completely missed to state anything about the reliefs claimed in his counter claim. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Manipur West, however, rejected the said application praying for recalling DW 1 mainly on the ground that the applicant, defendant failed to mention as to what evidence and in respect of which portion of the facts averred in his counter claim, DW 1 was required to be examined again. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Manipur West, however, rejected the said application praying for recalling DW 1 mainly on the ground that the applicant, defendant failed to mention as to what evidence and in respect of which portion of the facts averred in his counter claim, DW 1 was required to be examined again. 4. In my considered opinion, the prayer of the applicant/defendant should have been allowed in the interest of justice subject to payment of a reasonable cost to the plaintiffs for causing delay in the proceeding of the case. It is not that the defendant was not given an opportunity earlier to adduce his evidence in respect of his counter claim. He was given sufficient opportunity. However, his prayer was that through bonafide and inadvertent mistake, he missed to state about his counter claim in the suit at the time of giving his evidence. The adage, 'to err is human' is the recognition of the possibility of making mistake to which humans are prone. A corollary of any such latches or mistake during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as lacuna which Court cannot fill up. As per record also, it is ascertained that DW 1 did not state anything as to what he was praying/claiming for in the said counter claim. In this situation, the ends of justice would have been served by allowing the application of the defendant subject to payment of a reasonable cost to the other side. 5. No doubt, section 115 of the C.P.C., the High Court is to exercise the powers of varying or revising any order which is a subject matter of revision, except where the order, if it is made in favour of the party applying for the revisional jurisdiction, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. In other words, the order passed by this Court should be, in fact, of disposal of the proceedings or suit. In other words, the order passed by this Court should be, in fact, of disposal of the proceedings or suit. Thus, when an order of this Court will not dispose of the suit or proceeding, but it will merely decide the question raised at the interlocutory stage, this Court will not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and decide the case in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. Since the question, if the prayer for recalling DW 1 is to be allowed or not, is a question raised at the interlocutory stage, this Court will not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and decide the said question raised at the interlocutory stage, this Court will not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and decide the said question in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. However, I consider that the ends of justice will be made if the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked so as to present miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 29.12.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Manipur West in Judl. Misc. Case No.134 of 2000 is hereby quashed. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Manipur West is to allow the defendant to re-examine DW 1 in connection with his prayer made in his counter claim subject to payment of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to the plaintiffs. It is ascertained that the Original Suit No.51/94/20/95/20/97 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Manipur West has been pending for the last more than five years because of the pendency of this Revision application. There is a need on the part of the learned Civil Judge to proceed with the case expeditiously. 7. Send the trial Court records back to the concerned Court along with the copy of this order so as to reach there on or before 22.08.2006. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Manipur West on 22.08.2006 to obtain an appropriate order in connection with the further proceedings of the case. 8. With this order and direction, this application stands disposed of.