JUDGMENT : B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - This reference has been made by a learned Single Judge to decide whether a revision u/s 115 of the CPC would lie against a revisional order passed by the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under the same section as amended. Cause for the reference arose because a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No. 892 of 1991 Kelu Sahoo v. Kalandi Sahoo disposed of on 15-1-1992 made an observation in para-5 that "this Court can revise the revisional order of District Judge since under the amended provision restriction as imposed in respect of revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not there". The learned Single Judge in this present matter, however, could not persuade himself to agree with the aforesaid view. Hence, this reference. 2. It is known that revisional power was conferred on the District Judges of this State following amendment of the CPC by Orissa Act 26 of 1991. We may read amended Section 115 of the CPC : "115. The learned Single Judge in this present matter, however, could not persuade himself to agree with the aforesaid view. Hence, this reference. 2. It is known that revisional power was conferred on the District Judges of this State following amendment of the CPC by Orissa Act 26 of 1991. We may read amended Section 115 of the CPC : "115. The High Court; in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value exceeding one lakh rupees, and the District Court, in any other case including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before the commencement of the CPC (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1991, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, 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 or the District Court, as the case may be make such order in the case as it thinks fit : Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of any valuation decided by the District Court shall be competent to make an order under this section ; Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any order, including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceedings; or (i) the order if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings ; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. Explanation - In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding." 3. It may be stated that such an amendment had taken place in some other States of the country including Uttar Pradesh long before. Explanation - In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding." 3. It may be stated that such an amendment had taken place in some other States of the country including Uttar Pradesh long before. As Shri Mukherjee has brought to our notice two decisions of the Apex Court dealing with the Uttar Pradesh amendment, we may with profit know that amendment which was first effected, in 1970 to be further amended in 1978. Section 115 as it stood after 1978 amendment was in the following language : "115. The High Court, in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, including such suits or other proceedings instituted before Aug. 1, 1973 and the District Court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before such date, may call for the record of any case which fas been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be, 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 ; on (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 or the District Court .as the case may be make such order in the case as it thinks fit : Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original saute or proceedings of any valuation, decided by the District court the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section : Provided further that the High Court or the District Cowl shall not under this section, vary or reverse any order including am order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding dings except where,- (i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding ; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. (Explanation)-In this section the expressio any case which has been decided' includes any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding." 4. The amendments by Uttar Pradesh Legislature were mode to effectuate its determined purpose of dichotomising and decentrailsing the revisional jurisdiction, a goal which is laudable and which States may well regard as a paradigm. 5. The Apex. Court had occasion in Vishesh Kumar Vs. Shanti Prasad, to deal with the question as to whether High Court could revise a revisional order passed by the District judge and it was opined that the High Court is not vested with such power. This conclusion was arrived at, inter alia because the words case arising out of original suits'' finding place in the U. P. which is also the language used in Orissa Amendment, did not cover orders in revision. 6. Shri Senapati, learned junior counsel in the absence of his senior, did quite well bringing to our notice that power of the High Court under the amended Section 115 is not confined to original suits alone as it speaks of "other proceedings" also. This aspect of the matter had been dealt with Vishnu Avtar v. Shiv Autar, AIR 1980 SC 1575 which noted the decision rendered in Vishes Kumar {supra) and stated that the words "other proceedings" in the phrase "cases arising out of original suits or other proceeding?" referred to proceedings of final nature, it was amplified by saying that these words have not added in order to bring within the purview of the revisional jurisdiction orders passed in proceedings of an original nature, which are not of the nature of suits, like arbitration proceedings. This phrase which was added cannot include decisions of appeals or revisions, because then the Legislature will be deemed to have contradicted itself. It was finally pointed out that the words "or other proceedings" have to be read ejusdem generis with the words "original suits" and they will not include appeals or revisions. We may further point out th3t in Vishes kumar, it was pointed out that the intent behind bifurcation of jurisdiction-to reduce the number of revision, petitions filed in the High Court-would be frustrated if the revisional power of the High Court over the revisional order passed by the District Judge was to be recognised which would completely defeat the object of the legislative scheme. 7. 7. In view of the aforesaid two authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, it has to be held that a- revision does not lie to this Court against the revisional order passed by the District Judge. So, this petition which is directed against revisional order of the District Judge, CuttacK, is dismissed. R.K. Patra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed