As per case facts, Durga Dass mortgaged his land, and later, the appellants (legal heirs of the mortgagees) found that Dharam Dev (respondent 1) had mutated his name after Durga ... Dass's death. They filed a suit for joint ownership and injunction. They sought to amend their plaint, stating that Durga Dass had sold the land to the original mortgagees, and a pre-emption suit from 1943 was dismissed due to non-payment. The trial court allowed this amendment, but the High Court reversed it, deeming it barred by limitation for attacking a 1943 decree in a 1999 suit. The question arose whether the High Court erred in exercising its revisional powers under Section 115 CPC to set aside the trial court's order allowing the amendment of the plaint, specifically if allowing the amendment would cause a failure of justice or irreparable injury to the respondent. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the trial court's order. It reasoned that mere amendments to pleadings could not possibly cause a failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party, as they only serve as advance notice and the other side gets an opportunity to file a written statement and raise all defenses. The remedy for the respondent, if the suit is decided against them, is an appeal. Therefore, the order allowing the amendment did not fall under the criteria for revisional interference, and the trial court's order was restored.