JUDGMENT 1. - These revisions have been directed against the order dated 31.1.1991, passed by A.M.J.M. No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which he rejected the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the Non-Petitioner filed a suit for reinstatement and back wages. The petitioners raised an objection that the suit was not triable by the Civil Court. The trial court overruled the objections of the petitioners and decreed the suit. The petitioners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was also dismissed. Later on, the Non-petitioner filed execution application, in which the petitioners raised objection regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Courts for decreeing the suit. This objection of the petitioners was over-ruled by the A.M.J.M. No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide order dated 31.1.1991, against which the petitioners have filed the present revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Mr. Kukar, counsel for the petitioners argued that the decree passed by the lower courts was without jurisdiction and as such can not be executed. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on A.I.R. 1990 S. C. 255, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 340, and R.L.R. 1990(2) 306. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, counsel for the decree-holder, Non-Petitioner, argued that the suit was rightly decreed by the lower courts. The lower courts had jurisdiction to try the suit. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court passed in Civil First Appeal No. 45/88, Mohan Lal Mali v. R.S.R.T.C. decided on 21.5.1991 , and another judgment of Division Bench reported in R.L.R. 1988 (1) 697, R.S.R.T.C. and another v. Kalu Ram etc. , which was also upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9386/88 and other cases. The cases cited by counsel for the petitioners have been considered in the case of Mohan Lal Mali (supra), in which it was held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Even otherwise also the petitioners failed to prove that they are going to suffer irreparable injury on account of execution of the decree. 6. In 1976, Code of Civil Procedure was amended. Even otherwise also the petitioners failed to prove that they are going to suffer irreparable injury on account of execution of the decree. 6. In 1976, Code of Civil Procedure was amended. Section 115 was also amended and proviso was added to it, which provides that the High Court shall not, under that Section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where : (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. 7. In the present case, clause (a) of proviso is not applicable as the execution, proceedings are still pending. Clause (b) of the proviso is also not applicable as the petitioners failed to satisfy as to how they are going to suffer any injury on account of execution of decree. 8. IN A.I.R. 1957 S. C. 227, A. M. Allison and another v. B. L. San and others , the Apex Court held that the High Court has power to refuse the writ of certiorari if it is satisfied that there was no failure of justice. In the present case, there is no failure of justice. The order passed by the trial court advances the justice. 9. In view of this, the revisions are not maintainable and are hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******