JUDGMENT
1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants to a suit pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra. The plaintiff sued to recover money alleged to be due on a contract, The defendants urged two pleas, namely, that no such contract as was stated in the plaint bad taken place between the parties and, secondly, that if any contract did take place between the parties, it was of a wagering nature and could not be enforced. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge examined the defendants before proceeding any further in the case. He recorded their statements in a rubkar, dated the 21st of February 1918. After writing the depositions of the two defendants the Court framed three issues. The Pleader for the defence asked the learned Subordinate Judge to add a fourth issue to the effect that the contract, if any, between the parties was a wagering contract. The learned Subordinate Judge disallowed the prayer of defendants' Pleader.
2. The defendants have presented the present application in revision from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge rejecting the request of their Pleader to add a fourth issue in the case about the character of the contract. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the plaintiff to the effect that no revision lies from an interlocutory order. A number of cases have been cited on behalf of the plaintiff respondent in support of the preliminary objection, while the learned Counsel for the appellants relies upon certain oases of this Court as also upon some cases of other High Courts. We think it unnecessary to express an opinion upon the pure and net question of law whether a revision from an interlocutory order lies to this Court or not, as in the present case the applicants have another remedy open to them also when the case goes to trial and is disposed of. If they are by the omission of the proposed issue affected adversely and lose the case in the first Court, they can always in appeal to this Court urge the objection that the defence was not considered in its entirety. Under these circumstances the present application is not maintainable We would, however, like to remark that it would have been advisable, and it is still open to the Subordinate Judge to do so, if an issue were framed or is framed in accordance with the suggestion of the defendants-appellants, it would, in our opinion, save further trouble in the case.
3. We dismiss the application but make no order as to the costs.