ORDER : This is a petition filed under S. 115, C.P.C. to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge (I) dated 24-4-1966 dismissing Judicial Misc. Case No. 52 of 1964 in T.S. No. 92 of 1962 filed by the petitioners for taking action for disobedience of injunction under O. 39, R. 2(3) C.P.C. 2. The petitioners filed T. S. No. 92 of 1962 on the file of the lower Court for partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the land covered by Pattas No. 100/17 and 100/34-1. E. They filed Judicial Misc. Case No. 93 of 1963 under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from constructing a new house on the land covered by Patta No. 100/34. The lower Court passed an interim injunction against the respondents on 17-12-1963. The respondents filed Misc C. A. No. 1 of 1964 on the file of the District Court, Manipur, against the order of the Subordinate Judge (1), granting interim injunction. The District Judge dismissed the appeal on 10-6-1964. The petitioners subsequently filed Judicial Misc. Case No. 52 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court (I) for taking action against the respondents under Order 39, Rule 2(3) C.P.C for disobedience of the injunction on the ground that the respondents started construction of a house on the suit land in July 1964. The Subordinate Judge (I) dismissed the petition on 24-4-1966. 3. Under O. 43, R. 1(r), the order of the Subordinate Judge in question is appealable to the District Judge. But the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition under S. 115, C.P.C. to revise the order without filing an appeal to the District Judge. 4. The respondents counsel raised an objection that the present revision petition is not maintainable and that the remedy of the petitioner was to file an appeal against the impugned order to the District Judge under O. 43, R. 1(r), C.P.C. 5. 4. The respondents counsel raised an objection that the present revision petition is not maintainable and that the remedy of the petitioner was to file an appeal against the impugned order to the District Judge under O. 43, R. 1(r), C.P.C. 5. Section 115, C.P.C. runs as follows : "The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears - (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit". The plain language of the section shows that the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a case, firstly, where no appeal lies to the High Court and secondly, if the conditions mentioned in (a) to (c) of S. 115, C.P.C. are satisfied. Vide Mullas C.P.C. 12th Edition at page 409. The decisions relied on by the petitioners counsel, except the last one cited below have no bearing on the question in issue. Israil v. Samset Rahman, AIR 1914 Cal 362, lays down when a temporary injunction can be granted. In Hari Chand Anand and Co. v. Singer Manufacturing Co., AIR 1933 Lah 1046, the trial Court issued a temporary injunction under O. 39, R. 2, C.P.C. An appeal was filed against the said order before the District Judge. The latter modified the order of the trial Court. A revision was thereafter filed against the order of the District Judge and the revision petition was allowed in part on merits. In Bhagabat Prasanna Shah v. Revati Mohan Das. AIR 1934 Cal 818, the High Court passed an order of injunction on its original side and transferred the order for execution to the District Judge in Dacca. It was held that the execution proceedings of the District Judge were not ultra vires. In Jang Bahadur Singh v. Chhabila Koiri AIR 1936 Pat 23, the Munsiff passed an order of detention of the defendant in civil prison for disobedience of an order of injunction. The defendant carried the matter in appeal to the District Judge. The latter dismissed the appeal. In Jang Bahadur Singh v. Chhabila Koiri AIR 1936 Pat 23, the Munsiff passed an order of detention of the defendant in civil prison for disobedience of an order of injunction. The defendant carried the matter in appeal to the District Judge. The latter dismissed the appeal. It was held that the penalty described by O. 39. R. 2(3). C.P.C also applies to an order of injunction issued under O. 39, R. 1, C.P.C. The last case cited by the petitioners counsel which supports his contention is reported in Ma Min Baw v. A.V.P.L.N. Chettyar Firm, 144 Ind Cas 163 : (AIR 1933 Rang 64); a Subordinate Judge passed an order under S. 145, C.P.C. It was held that an application for revision against that order was competent although an appeal lay to the District Court against the order and also a second appeal lay to the High Court, against the order of the District Judge. But it was further held that the High Court will not as a rule interfere in revision in a case where a good legal remedy lies in a Subordinate Court and that the High Court does not view with favour the case being brought before it, but that under special circumstances the High Court can entertain an application for revision, although another remedy is open to the party. 6. The respondents counsel relied on the two following decisions in support of the contention that the revision does not lie, In Ottapurakal Thayath Suppi v. Alabi Masahur Koya, AIR 1914 Mad 141, the Munsiff refused to attach the property of a person, who disobeyed an injunction order. The matter was carried in appeal to the District Judge. The District Judge allowed the appeal. The High Court held that there was no ground for interference under Section 115 or 151, C.P.C. In Vanthali Cloth Association v. Mathuradas Dayalal, AIR 1953 Sau 76, it was held that an order under O. 39, R. 2(3). C.P.C. is appealable under O. 43. R. 1(r) and that an order of refusal by the District Judge to entertain an appeal was revisable. So, the decisions relied on by the respondents counsel also have no bearing on the point involved viz., whether a revision lies to the High Court against an order, against which an appeal could be filed in a Subordinate Court. 7. R. 1(r) and that an order of refusal by the District Judge to entertain an appeal was revisable. So, the decisions relied on by the respondents counsel also have no bearing on the point involved viz., whether a revision lies to the High Court against an order, against which an appeal could be filed in a Subordinate Court. 7. The observation in 144 Ind Cas 163 : (AIR 1933 Rang 64), that a revision lies against an order of the trial Court, even though an appeal lies to the District Court and a second appeal to the High Court cannot be said to be correct law in view of a very recent decision of the Supreme Court, reported in S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon. AIR 1964 SC 497 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down certain propositions of law. The material propositions, which are relevant for this case are as hereunder :- (i) The power of the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C. is exercisable in respect of any "case" which has been decided. The word "case" in S. 115 C.P.C. is not confined to a proceeding in the nature of a suit. But, it includes a proceeding in a Civil Court in which the Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, for the determination of some claim or right legally enforceable. (ii) If an appeal lies against the adjudication directly to the High Court or to another Court, against the decision of which a second appeal also lies to the High Court, then the High Court has no power to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. (iii) But, where the decision is not appealable to the High Court directly or indirectly as mentioned above, then the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court would not be deemed to be excluded. The Supreme Court also laid down the scope of trial of a suit, with reference to issues of law and fact, which is not necessary for the purpose for the present case. Then, the Supreme Court further laid down that the High Court is not obliged to exercise its jurisdiction when a case is decided by a Subordinate Court and the conditions in Cls. (a) to (c) of S. 115, C.P.C. are satisfied, but that the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary and that the High Court is not bound to interfere. Then, the Supreme Court further laid down that the High Court is not obliged to exercise its jurisdiction when a case is decided by a Subordinate Court and the conditions in Cls. (a) to (c) of S. 115, C.P.C. are satisfied, but that the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary and that the High Court is not bound to interfere. It was further held that the interlocutory character of the order, the existence of another remedy to an aggrieved party by way of an appeal and the general equities of the case being served by the order passed are all matters to be taken into account in considering whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction or not. Applying the tests laid down by the above decision, it is seen that the present revision petition is maintainable, because no second appeal lies to this Court, even though an appeal lay to the District Court. But, the exercise of this revisional jurisdiction is purely a matter of judicial discretion. The lower Court recorded the evidence and found on facts that there was no disobedience of the order of injunction. As such Cls. (a) to (c) of S. 115, C.P.C., are not attracted. If the petitioner had filed an appeal under O. 43, R. 1(r), C.P.C. before the District Court, then the District Judge would have examined the evidence and come to a decision whether the order of the Subordinate Judge on facts is correct or not But so far as this Court is concerned, unless the matter falls within the scope of S. 115, C.P.C. it should not interfere. As such, there are no grounds for interference. 8. The petitioners counsel stated that if the revision petition is found to be not maintainable, then it may be turned into an appeal and sent to the District Court for disposal. He relied on Run Bahadur Singh v. Bajrangi Prasad Singh, 78 Ind Cas 495 : (AIR 1925 Pat 16). That decision shows that a revision petition could be treated as an appeal for disposal by the High court itself, since an appeal lay to the High Court under Section 47. C.P.C. This decision is not an authority for the proposition formulated by the petitioners counsel that a revision petition can be converted into an appeal and sent to the Court having Jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal. 9. C.P.C. This decision is not an authority for the proposition formulated by the petitioners counsel that a revision petition can be converted into an appeal and sent to the Court having Jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal. 9. The respondents counsel argued that the present revision petition cannot be treated as an appeal and sent to the District Court for disposal. He relied on Simhagiri Dora v. Zemindarini of Chemudu, AIR 1950 Mad 15 . In that case the decretal portion of a judgement was amended to bring it into conformity with its earlier portion. The decree was also amended. It was held that no revision lay against the amending order, as an alternative remedy of an appeal against the amended decree was available. It was further held that the revision could not be converted into an appeal as the amended decree was not filed along with the petition. So, the decision shows that a revision petition can be converted into an appeal and disposed of by the High Court and does not directly bear on the point under consideration. In Rambhoresingh v. Madho Rao, AIR 1951 Madh B 60, a revision petition was dismissed by the High Court on merits. The decision of the lower Court became final. It was held that the jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked by filing an appeal against the decision of the lower Court, suppressing the fact of dismissal of the revision. So, this decision also is not an authority, which supports the contention of the respondents counsel. In Abdulla Fazal v. Virji, AIR 1952 Kutch 20, it was held that an application for revision may be treated as a second appeal or vice versa by the High Court entertaining it, but that an incompetent application for revision cannot be returned for presentation to the proper Court as an appeal. In Indu Bhusan Sreemani v. Sm. Angurbala Dasi. AIR 1955 Cal 63 it was held that, though the High Court has power to treat the application in revision as an appeal, it should not exercise this power, where the applicant had been guilty of making a deliberate false statement in the affidavit in support of the revision application. 10. In Indu Bhusan Sreemani v. Sm. Angurbala Dasi. AIR 1955 Cal 63 it was held that, though the High Court has power to treat the application in revision as an appeal, it should not exercise this power, where the applicant had been guilty of making a deliberate false statement in the affidavit in support of the revision application. 10. This Court has the power to convert the present revision petition into an appeal, if the revision petition does not lie and if an appeal lies to this Court and this Court can dispose of the appeal. Section 34 of Manipur Courts Act (Act LVI of 1955) also specifically provides for this course. But, this Court cannot either return this revision petition for presentation to the District Court as an appeal nor convert the revision petition into an appeal and then transfer, it to the District Court for disposal. It is not necessary to further probe into this, because I have held that the revision petition is maintainable and that there are no grounds for interference under Section 115 C.P.C. 11. In the result, the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs. Revision dismissed.