JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the order of the 12th additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, in Civil Regular appeal No. 3/92 dated 11.6.1992 rejecting an application under section 148 Civil Procedure Code. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondenton the ground that a revision petition against the order passed during the pendency of the appeal is not maintainable in view of the clear provision of section 115 Civil Procedure Code as amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the judgment of this Court interpreting the provisions so contained. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri A.K. Sethistrenuously argued that the order impugned is an original· order passed by the lower appellate Court without touching the merit of the order of the lower Court. Therefore, this order should be treated as an original order. On the other hand; Shri Upadhyaya learned counsel for the respondent argued that in view of the interpretation of this Court to the provisions of section 115 Civil Procedure Code this revision is not tenable. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective arguments of the parties and have gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Phariya Bricks Works v. Malvendra Singh Amarsingh ( 1990 MPLJ 371 ), wherein it has been held that al1 orders passed by the Court in any appeal or revision filed by any party are orders passed either in appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Law does not contemplate any kind of original order being passed in a pending matter in appellate or revisional jurisdiction, which can be distinguished with regard to its character from the final order passed threin. High Court's revisional jurisdiction is now invokable against 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. The Division Bench of this Court while passing the aforesaid order has taken into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Vishnu Awatar ( AIR 1980 SC 1575 ) and the other judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court. This matter was also considered by the Single Bench of this Court in Civil revision between Manabhawati v. Smt. Shanti Devi (M.P . This matter was also considered by the Single Bench of this Court in Civil revision between Manabhawati v. Smt. Shanti Devi (M.P . Weekly Notes 1986-I short note No.219) and the learned single Judge after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Vishnu Awatar's case (supra), has held that if the suit from which the cases arises in which the decision is made is one where was valuation is less than Rs.20,000/- then the case has to be restricted to the Court of the District Judge only except in that class of cases where the decision is taken for the first time by the district Court itself in a case arising out of an original proceeding. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a decision impugned has been taken by the district Court itself for the first time and, therefore, the order is revisable but the decision taken for the first time as to be read with the words 'in a case arising out of an original proceeding '. As such, only those orders of the District Judge which have been taken for the first time by the District Judge in a case arising out of an original proceeding are revisionable or where the valuation of the suit is over Rs. 20,000/- As such, in view of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, it is not a fit case wherein the revision can be held to be maintainable. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed being not tenable under the law. 1990 MPLJ 371 and 1986 (I) MPWN 219 relied on. AIR 1980 SC 1575 followed.