( 1 ) THI Civil Revision Petition is one under S. 115 C. P. C. and arises out of an order dated 19-1-19 78 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Kolar in Misc. Appeal no. 155 of 1975 dismissing the appeal filed by the revision petitioner R' G. Nara- yana Reddy, who will hereinafter be referred to as the 'petitioner', against the order dated 25-8-19 75 passed by Addl. Munsiff, Kolar in Misc. No. 5 of 1975, an application filed by him under S. 340 Crl. P. C. 1973 (shortly called the 'code') requesting the Munsiff to file a complaint against all the respondents herein alleging that they had committed offences under Ss. 193 to 211, 463, 47!. 475 and 476 IPC. relating to the proceedings in a civil suit in O. S. No. 12/1968 on his file brought by the 1st respondent Chinnappa against the petitioner, respondent-5 Patel Ven- kataswamy Reddy and one Venkataramanappa on the strength of the forged as- signment of a promissory note executed by the petitioner and respondent-5 in favour of the said Venkataramanappa. The learned Munsiff, after holding an enquiry, dismissed the application as per order dated 25-8-1975 referred above on the ground that it was not expedient in the interests of justice to lodge a complaint against the respondents. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order filed Misc. Appeal No. 155 of 19 75 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, kolar, which also ended with the same result of dismissal as per the order dated 19-1-1978. It is the correctness of this order that is sought to be challenged by the petitioner in this civil revision petition which, as stated supra, is one under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) WHILE arguing on the revision petition for admission, Shri M. S. Gopal. learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that the order of the appellate court against which the present revision is filed, is an order made in the appeal filed by the petitioner under S. 341 of the Code against the order of the Addl. Mnnsiff, Kolar dismissing an application filed by him (petitioner) under section 340 of the Code. learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that the order of the appellate court against which the present revision is filed, is an order made in the appeal filed by the petitioner under S. 341 of the Code against the order of the Addl. Mnnsiff, Kolar dismissing an application filed by him (petitioner) under section 340 of the Code. ( 3 ) NOW the question for consideration will be whether an order passed in appeal under S. 341 of the Code is revisable under S. 115 C. P. C, ( 4 ) S. 341 of the Code, which is the relevant provision for our purpose, reads as follows:"341 (1 ). Any person on whose application any Court other than a High court has refused to make a complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such court, may appeal to the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195, and the superior Court may thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or, as the case may be, making of the complaint which such former court might have made under section 340, and, if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly. (2) An order under this section, and subject to any such order, an order under section 340, shall be final and shall not be subject to revision. " ( 5 ) A plain reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 341 of the code will bear out that an appeal lies against an order made under S. 340 of the code making or refusing to make a complaint by any court other than the High court. Sub-section (2) bars any second appeal and revision. It provides that an order made in appeal under sub-section (1) of S. 341 and subject to any such order, an order under S. 340 shall be final and shall not be subject to revision. Therefore' it is clear that only one appeal lies against an order making or refusing to make a complaint under S. 340 of the Code by any court other than the High Court. Therefore' it is clear that only one appeal lies against an order making or refusing to make a complaint under S. 340 of the Code by any court other than the High Court. Subject to the appeal provided under sub-section (1) of S. 341, no revision lies against the said order making or refusing to make the complaint. Further norevi. sion also lies against the order passed in appeal. When the procedure is regulated under the Code and the order becomes final and no revision lies against such an order under the Code, the party aggrieved by such an order cannot take shelter under S. 115 C, P. C. to challenge the correctness of such an order merely on the ground that the order contemplated under S. 340 and sub-section (I) of S 341 of the Code were made by Civil Courts. Though such orders were made by the Civil courts, those orders were made not in exercise of the civil jurisdiction so as to attract the provisions of S. 115 C. P,c, but were essentially made under the provisions of the Code and therefore, the appeal and the revision against ^such orders shall have to be regulated by the provisions of the Code. Sub-section (2) of section 341 of the Code specifically bars a revision against an order in appeal made under sub-section (1) of S. 341 of the Code. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that this revision petition is not maintainable. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is rejected. --- *** --- .