JUDGMENT The present revision petition is against the order dated 15.3.1991, passed in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/89, arising out of Civil Suit No. 57-A/85, allowing the application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') The applicants-plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents- defendants before the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Budhar, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 57-A/85 and was decreed. An appeal against the same was preferred along with an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Act. The lower appellate Court, after considering the objections and hearing the parties, has allowed the application under section 5 of the Act and has fixed the case for hearing on merits. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant" is that the respondents were aware of the judgment of the trial Court and they cannot take the benefit of the fact that they came to know of the judgment lateron. Submission of the learned counsel for the non-applicants is that revision against the interlocutory order passed by the lower appellate Court in an appeal arising out of a decree passed by the trial Court, is not maintainable, for which he has relied on Ramchandra v. Dattatraya ( 1986 JLJ 344 ) and the order of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1117 of 1984 (Manbhawat & another v. Smt. Shanti Devi & two others) decided on 24.1.1986. In the case of Ramchandra v. Dattatraya (supra), it has been held that after 14.8.1984 when the Amending Act 29 of 1984 came into force, the High Court is empowered to exercise only such powers as are conferred on the High Court by the provisions of section 115-Civil Procedure Code as amended. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Pirbux v. Babulal (Civil Revision No. 6 of 1985) wherein it was held that as the revision petition in the instant case is directed against an order passed by a district Court in appeal, arising out of a suit of the value of less than twenty thousand rupees, it is not maintainable under section 115 Civil Procedure Code. Similar question was also dealt with in Civil Revision No. 1117/84 mentioned above and the revision was also dismissed. I am bound by the decisions of this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is not maintainable. Similar question was also dealt with in Civil Revision No. 1117/84 mentioned above and the revision was also dismissed. I am bound by the decisions of this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise, if the order is allowed to stand, it would not occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the applicant. No interference in the revision petition is called for. It is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 1986 JLJ 344 , C.R. 1117/84 and C.R. 6/85 relied on.