JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) WHEN this revision came up for hearing, Shri Chandmal Mehta,. learned counsel for the non-applicants raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the revision is not competent in view of the fact that the order, which is sought to be revised, is appealable. ( 2. ) ARGUMENTS were heard on the aforesaid preliminary question. Shri mehta placing reliance on sub-section (2) of section 115 as amended by the civil Procedure Code Amendment (Act No. 104 of 1976) Act, 1976, contended that in view of the fact that appeal against the impugned order lay to the court of District Judge, the revision is barred. Shri N. R. Nevaskar, learned counsel for the revision-applicant, submitted that the revision is competent in view of the ratio in Smt. Vidya Vati v. Devi Das (AIR 1977 S C 397), inasmuch as no appeal lies against the impugned order to this Court and that also in view of the provisions of section 80 (2), Civil Procedure Code as inserted by the Amendment act No. 104 of 1976. ( 3. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection deserves to be upheld. ( 4. ) IN the instant case, the plaintiff-applicant-herein instituted the suit giving rise to the present revision with the leave of the Court without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1) of section 80, Civil Procedure Code. This is clear from the order passed by the trial Court on 6-10-1980. Now, the plaintiff-applicant-herein submitted an application for issuance of a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, civil Procedure Code for restraining the defendant-non-applicant No. 1, who is the Receiver appointed by the Insolvency Court from proceeding with the auction sale of the house in dispute until the decision of the suit. This application was opposed by the defendant-non-applicants and was rejected by the impugned order. ( 5. ) UNDISPUTEDLY the order passed by the trial Court refusing the grant of temporary injunction is appealable by virtue of Order 43, Rule l (r), Civil procedure Code. Shri Nevaskar, learned counsel for the revision-applicant invoked the aid of the ratio of the case of Smt. Vidya Vati (supra) and contended that since the appeal against the said order does not lie to this Court, the revision is competent. Shri Nevaskar, learned counsel for the revision-applicant invoked the aid of the ratio of the case of Smt. Vidya Vati (supra) and contended that since the appeal against the said order does not lie to this Court, the revision is competent. The ratio of the case of Vidya Vati (supra) on which reliance is placed, reads as under: "under section 115 a revision application can lie before the High court from an order made by a subordinate Court only if no appeal lies from that order to the High Court. The words of limitation used in section 115 are "in which no appeal lies thereto" and these words clearly mean that no appeal must lie to the High Court, from the order sought to be revised. Where an order allowing a review application in a suit for possession is made by Sub-Judge and an appeal against such an order lies to the District Court and not to the High Court, a revision application filed against the said order before the High Court is maintainable and it cannot be rejected as incompetent. " ( 6. ) IT appears that the ratio of the case of Smt. Vidya Vati (supra) turned on construction of section 115, Civil Procedure Code as it stood prior to the amendments brought about therein by the Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976. The relevant portion whereof read as under : "s. 115. 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. " (Emphasis supplied)There was no provision in the unamended section 115, Civil Procedure Code corresponding to sub section (2) of section 115, Civil Procedure Code as amended by the aforesaid Amendment Act. Sub-section (2) of section 115 reads thus: " (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. " (Emphasis supplied)In view of the insertion of the aforesaid sub-section (2) in section 115, reliance on ratio of the case of Smt. Vidya Vati (supra) cannot be regarded to be available for the present purposes. " (Emphasis supplied)In view of the insertion of the aforesaid sub-section (2) in section 115, reliance on ratio of the case of Smt. Vidya Vati (supra) cannot be regarded to be available for the present purposes. The impugned order having been passed in a suit instituted after the coming into force of the aforesaid Amendment act, since appeal against the impugned order lies to a Court subordinate to this Court, revision cannot be regarded as maintainable. ( 7. ) THIS brings me to the second contention advanced by Shri Nevaskar. Relying on section 80 (2), Civil Procedure Code it was contended that the power to grant relief of interim character flows from the sub-section (2 ). As such, an order passed in the matter is not appealable, but is revisable. This argument appears to be attractive on the face of it, but is devoid of substance. The object, which sub-section (2) of section 80, Civil Procedure Code, has to achieve is to clothe the Court with power and authority to permit institution of a suit without serving any notice as required by sub-section (I) thereof. Further-more, what it provides is that the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit. It has further been provided that if the Court shall, if it is satisfied after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1 ). However, from the provisions placed in section 80 (2) the power Jo grant relief of interim character in the shape of temporary injunction, does not flow. The power to issue temporary injunction is conferred on the Courts by section 94 read with order 39, Rules I and 2, Civil Procedure Code. The Courts have also inherent power to issue temporary injunction on an appropriate case being made out. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be regarded to have been passed under section 80 (2), Civil Procedure Code, but has to be regarded to be one passed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. The Courts have also inherent power to issue temporary injunction on an appropriate case being made out. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be regarded to have been passed under section 80 (2), Civil Procedure Code, but has to be regarded to be one passed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court falls within the orders specified in Order 43, rule 1 and as such, it was appealable before the Court of District Judge and/or additional District Judge. ( 8. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the preliminary objection is upheld. Consequently, it is held that this revision is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.