K.S. Lodha, J.
1. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated 26.10.83 by which he refused to examine the plaintiff under Order 10 Rule, 2 CPC.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner that this revision is not maintainable because no case can be said to have been decided by the order under revision nor the petitioner defendant tenant would suffer any irreparabale injury and, therefore, the case does not fall within the four corners of Section 115 CPC. In my opinion this preliminary objection deserves to be accepted. No case can be said to have been decided by the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge. No rights or liabilities or any part thereof, of any of the parties to the suit have been decided by this order. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the suit is for ejectment based on default amongst other grounds and there is a controversy about the payment of electric charges in as much as the case of the defendant tenant is that he had been paying the electric charges on behalf of the plaintiff landlord also because there is joint meter and the plaintiff had not been paying is share of the electric charges to him and has been taking different stands clarification of which is necessary. To this a short answer is that at present provisional rent has not been determined. When it is determined and if the defendant is not be satisfied with the determination, the order would be open to an appeal or revision and in that appeal or revision this contention can be examined. Therefore, no irreparable injury would be caused to the defendant at this stage. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Bhanwar Lal Khavad v. Shyamsunder 1983 RLW 607 but that case cannot be of any assistance to him because the question of maintainability of the revision was not raised in that revision and therefore, that anthority is not an authority on the question whether the order refusing to examine a party under Order 10, Rule 2, CPC amounts to a case decided. In these circumstances this revision cannot be entertained.
4. For the reasons stated above, the revision is summrily rejected.