ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This is a Second Revision directed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Agra whereby lie dismissed the revision preferred by the applicant. 2. The undisputed facts are these. Suit No. 838 of 1964 was filed by the opposite parties against the applicant. It was the usual suit by the landlord against the tenant after the determination of his tenancy. The reliefs claimed were ejectment, arrears of rent and damages etc. The suit was decreed on 23rd August, 1972. Against the judgment of the trial court, Civil Appeal No. 318 of 1972 was preferred to the District Judge, Agra and the same was transferred to the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Agra. The appeal is said to be pending in the said court. An application was moved by the Appellant before the said court (who is applicant before us) in the said appeal on 27th February, 1973 praying for the stay of the hearing of the appeal till the disposal of the appeal pending in the Supreme Court which arose out of suit No. 122 of 1964 between the same parties. The appellate court i.e. the court of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra rejected the said application on 16th March, 1973. Against the order of the rejection of the stay application the Appellant Govind Prasad Chaturvedi filed a revision in the court of the District Judge, Agra. The Additional District Judge, Agra dismissed the revision as not maintainable. In his order he says that in view of the Full Bench pronouncement of this Court reported in Har Prasad Singh v. Ram Swarup 1973 AWR 241 the revision was not maintainable in his court. Against the said order of the Additional District Judge, Agra holding the revision to be not maintainable before him, this Second Revision has now been filed by the applicant and it has been contended on his behalf that the view of the lower revisional court that the revision was not maintainable before the said court is not correct. 3. At an earlier stage when I heard the revision, I felt that in view of some difference of approach in the two single Judge pronouncements of this Court, the controversy should go before a larger Bench. 3. At an earlier stage when I heard the revision, I felt that in view of some difference of approach in the two single Judge pronouncements of this Court, the controversy should go before a larger Bench. The larger Bench, however, did not decide the controversy as in its view, as a Single Judge, I should first consider the question of the maintainability of the revision in this Court before entering into the question whether the revision in the lower revisional court was maintainable or not. Hence, I proceed to decide the question whether the revision is maintainable in this Court. With respect to the Division Bench, I am of the view that in view of the majority decision in Phoolwati v. Gursahai Civil Revision No. 1523 of 1972 (Alld.) this revision should be held to be maintainable. This Court has laid down in the said case that after the amendment of Section 115, CPC in 1973, a revision is maintainable against an order passed by the District judge in an original suit or in exercise of the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order in the instant case was admittedly passed by the First Additional District judge, Agra in his revisional jurisdiction. The Court's decision in the said case is founded on the interpretation of the proviso which has been added to Section 115 CPC by the amendment of 1973. The proviso is as follows: Provided that in respect of cases decided before the 20th day of September, 1970, and also all cases arising out of original suits of any valuation decided by the District Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this Section. 4. Chief Justice D.S. Mathur, in his opinion rendered in the said case, observed: The second part of the proviso tried to make good the other omission. The controversy, however, is at to the scope of this part of the proviso. Cases arising out of original rots decided by the District Court include orders passed in the original suit and consequently such revisions, which were earlier hot maintainable, shall now lie to the High Court, Toe Full Bench of this Court had expressed the opinion that no revision lay against the order of the District Judge passed in exerciser of his appellate or revisional jurisdiction, hut after the 1973 amendment such an issue has been raised. In case the expression "arising out of original suits" used in the proviso, in the same manner as it was incorporated at the prior stages, is given a restricted meaning, revision shall lie only against orders passed by the District Judge in Original suits and not in miscellaneous proceedings or in appeals or revisions; but if orders passed in miscellaneous proceedings are covered by the expression there is no reason why it be not extended to orders passed in appeal or revision. Consequently, if the above expression "arising out of original suits" used in 1973 Amendment is given the same meaning as in the earlier amendments of 1970 and 1972, revision shall lie before the High Court against orders passed by the District Judge in appeal or revision even though such revisions were not maintainable under the 1972 Amendment. 5. It will be seen that the second part of the proviso speaks of original suit of any valuation. In of original the matter, therefore, even though the suit in the instant case was valued at less than Rs. 20,000/-, still, in view of the aforesaid interpretation of the second part of the said proviso added by the 1973 Amendment, the second revision is held to he maintainable. 6. It may be stated here that this revision was filed after the 1973 Amendment in Section 115 became effective, It is true that the impugned order itself was passed on 8th September, 1973 but the revision was filed on 1st November, 1973. The 1973 Amendment became effective on 9th October, 1973. In my view, it is the amended provision which will govern the maintainability of this revision. 7. However, on the merits of the controversy involved in the revision, I am of the view that the order passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra in Civil Appeal No, 318 of 1972 rejecting application No, 162-C praying for a stay of the hearing of the appeal on the ground that another appeal filed by the Appellant was pending in the Supreme Court, was not fit to be revised as there was no jurisdictional error or material irregularity or illegality in the said order, It was purely a discretionary order refusing to stay the hearing of the appeal presumably passed u/s 151 Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the revision in the lower revisional court, whether maintainable or not, was fit to be dismissed even on merits, It is open to me in the instant revision to take into consideration this aspect of the matter and, therefore, this revision is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.