A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-1-90 passed by the Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in Review Case No. 6 of 1989. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this revision, in short, are that the present petitioner had filed a revision petition before the lower revisional court aggrieved against the order of Sixth Civil Judge, Class II, Indore passed in C. S. No. 85-A of 1983. That revision petition was registered as C. R. No. 28 of 1989. After hearing both the parties, vide its order dated 26-7-89 the revision petition was dismissed. Against the aforesaid order a review petition was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this revision. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the applicant Shri Garg argues that the order passed in the review application is against the law, therefore, it should be quashed. ( 4 ) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the non-applicant Shri Joshi argues that this revision petition is not tenable having been filed against the review order. Even if the revision would have been filed against the order under review, a revision to this Court could not lie because a second revision petition against the revisional order is not tenable. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel I am of the opinion that this revision petition is not maintainable because no revision petition can be filed against an order passed by the District Judge in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. However, in the instant case the petitioner instead of filing a revision petition against the revisional order of the lower Court filed a review petition before it and against the order in the review petition this revision has been filed. ( 6 ) SHRI Garg claims that the order in the review petition being an original order a revision is maintainable against that order. In my opinion, this argument has no force because when a revision cannot be filed against an order in the revision, a revision would not lie even against the order passed on the review application in respect of the same revision petition. It is a settled principle that whatever cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. In my opinion, this argument has no force because when a revision cannot be filed against an order in the revision, a revision would not lie even against the order passed on the review application in respect of the same revision petition. It is a settled principle that whatever cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. ( 7 ) FURTHER more, the position of law has been very clearly stated in a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Phariya Bricks Works (Firm) v. Malavendra Singh Amar Singh, 1990 MPLJ 371 , wherein the D. B. has also considered the Supreme Court cases in Vishesh Kumar, AIR 1980 SC 892 and Sri Vishnu Awatar, AIR 1980 SC 1575 . Following the principles enunciated in the aforesaid two Supreme Court decisions in respect of the State amendments in S. 115, C. P. C. brought about in the State of U. P. the Division Bench was of the view that the amendment in the State of M. P. in S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure being the same, as that of U. P. the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court are fully applicable in the matter of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court of M. P. The aforesaid Division Bench judgment has clearly laid down that the law does not contemplate any kind of original order being passed in a pending appeal or revision which could be distinguished from the final order and it has further been held that the High Court can invoke jurisdictionagainst all orders of subordinate Courts in those cases only in which the valuation of the suit is above Rs. 20,000/- except against such orders with respect to which it can hear appeals. As a corollary, appellate or revisional orders of a District Judge arising out of a suit of valuation of less than Rs. 20,000/- are impervious to High Court's revisional jurisdiction. However, all orders passed by the District Judge in original suits or other similar original proceedings (not being orders passed in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction) irrespective of valuation are also revisable by the High Court. In view of the aforesaid Division Bench view, this revision petition is not tenable. 20,000/- are impervious to High Court's revisional jurisdiction. However, all orders passed by the District Judge in original suits or other similar original proceedings (not being orders passed in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction) irrespective of valuation are also revisable by the High Court. In view of the aforesaid Division Bench view, this revision petition is not tenable. ( 8 ) SHRI Garg has placed reliance on the judgment of Smt. Vaidya Vati v. Shri Devi Das, AIR 1977 SC 397 to canvass the view that revision against an appellate order of a District Judge is maintainable before the High Court. But this authority is of no help to Shri Garg in view of the fact that the aforesaid judgment is not in respect of the consequences of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure by the State of M. P. in respect of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. ( 9 ) SHRI Garg lastly has made a prayer that the revision may be converted into a writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. In my opinion, this prayer cannot be allowed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishesh Kumar, AIR 1980 SC 892 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that a revision petition under S. 115, C. P. C. is a separate and distinct proceeding from a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution and one cannot be identified with other. While dealing with the prayer that the revision be remitted to the High Court for consideration as a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court was of the view that such a course of action cannot be adopted because the revisional proceedings are separate and distinct proceedings than the proceedings under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the prayer of the learned applicant on this point also cannot be allowed. However, the applicant is free to file a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution for redressal of his grievance if he may be advised to do so. ( 10 ) WITH the aforesaid observation this revision petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/ -. Petition dismissed. .