B. S. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision application has been filed against the order on the preliminary issue which was ordered to be decided as preliminary issue by the order below Exh. 58 and while deciding the issue the plaintiffs suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) at Gandevi by the or-der dated 17 December 1991. In this Revision Application Justice S. D. Shah has passed the following order on March 3 1993rule. Ad interim relief in terms of para 5 (B ). The petitioner is at liberty to file First Appeal if so advised. IN para 5 (B) of the revision application interim relief was asked for restraining the respondent-original defendants from dealing with properties mentioned in the suit in any way and also from selling alienating transferring or creating any charge over the suit properties. The said injunction order as modified subsequently by Justice S. D. Shah on 21st April 1993 in Civil Application No. 1073 of 1993 is still in operation. ( 2 ) THE second Civil Application No. 2759 of 1993 was filed on behalf of the respondents for disposal of the revision application as infructuous and not maintainable and directing the respondents to withdraw the revision application as they have filed Regular Appeal No. 26 of 1993 before the District Court at Valsad. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned advocate Mr. D. D. Vyas for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. M. Patel learned advocate for the applicants in Civil Application No. 2759 of 1993 and also Mr. Hamid Kureshi learned advocate for applicant in Civil Application No. 1073 of 1993. The main contention that is raised in the revision application is that after filing of the first appeal before the District Court at Valsad being Regular Appeal No. 26 of 1993 the present application becomes infructuous. It is an undisputed fact that appeal is a larger remedy. It is also an undisputed fact that if the appeal lies then revision would not lie. The only contention is whether the revision under section 115 of C. P. Code would not lie to High Court or to subordinate court thereto. Mr. Vyas submitted that if the appeal lies to the subordinate court but not to this court even as a second appeal then this revision application would be competent. The only contention is whether the revision under section 115 of C. P. Code would not lie to High Court or to subordinate court thereto. Mr. Vyas submitted that if the appeal lies to the subordinate court but not to this court even as a second appeal then this revision application would be competent. He has supported his submission by citing judgment of this court reported in 13 G. L. R. at p. 555 as well as a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1977 S. C. at p. 397. In the case before the High Court reported in 13 GLR (supra) the order which was passed by the learned Judge and it was described as a curious order is as follows:for the reasons stated above this court cannot re-entertain this suit and the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff if he wants. IT was held that it cannot be said to be an order under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if it is held to be an order under Order 7 Rule 10 then the appeal would lie under Order 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. After quoting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. S. Khanas vs. F. J. Dhillon AIR 1964 SC 497 Justice D. A. Desai as he then was observed as under:it is thus well-settled that where an appeal may directly lie to the High Court or an appeal may lie to the first appellate Court and then second appeal would lie against the appellate decree to the High Court the High Court cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115. But if no appeal lies to the High Court either directly or mediately from some appellate decree this court can certainly exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115. Now when an order is made under Order 7 Rule 10 undoubtedly an appeal would lie under Order 43 Rule 1 to the appellate Court. But indisputably no second appeal would lie against the order made by the appellate Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In such a case I should feel no difficulty and hesitation in exercising revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court. SIMILAR observations are made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment of Smt. Vidyavati (supra ). But indisputably no second appeal would lie against the order made by the appellate Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In such a case I should feel no difficulty and hesitation in exercising revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court. SIMILAR observations are made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment of Smt. Vidyavati (supra ). In para 7 it is observed as under: Now there can be no doubt that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure a revision application can lie before the High Court from an order made by a subordinate court only if no appeal lies from that order to the High Court. The words of limitation used in Section 115 are in which no appeal lies thereto and these words clearly mean that no appeal must lie to the High Court from the order sought to be revised because an appeal is a much larger remedy than a revision application and if an appeal lies that would afford sufficient relief and there would be no reason or justification for invoking the revisional jurisdiction. The question therefore here is whether an appeal against the order made by the learned Sub-Judge allowing the review application lay to the High Court. If it did the revision application would be clearly incompetent. Now Order XLIII Rule 1 clause (w) undoubtedly provides an appeal against an order allowing a review application but the order allowing the review application in the present case was made by the learned Sub-Judge and hence an appeal against it lay to the District Court and not to the High Court and obviously since no appeal lay against the order of the learned Sub-Judge to the High Court the revision application could not be rejected as incompetent. ( 4 ) NOW the aforesaid two judgments clearly observe that if no appeal lies to the High Court either as a First Appeal or Second Appeal certainly the court will be competent to entertain the revision application. Here in the present case the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) has dismissed the suit of course on the preliminary issue. ( 4 ) NOW the aforesaid two judgments clearly observe that if no appeal lies to the High Court either as a First Appeal or Second Appeal certainly the court will be competent to entertain the revision application. Here in the present case the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) has dismissed the suit of course on the preliminary issue. Therefore once the suit is dismissed there will be a decree of dismissal of the suit and therefore the first appeal to the District Court as well as the second appeal to the High Court would lie and therefore prima facie it appears that the revision application would not be maintainable even on the ratio of the aforesaid two judgments of the Gujarat High Court as well as the Supreme Court. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned that that was the position of law as pronounced by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred (supra) but subsequently sub-section 2 of Section 115 has been added which reads as under: (2) The High Court shall not under this section vary reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. THE said amendment has come into force on and from 1. 2. 1977. That sub-section was not before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. The Supreme Court also was deciding the law as it stood when the Civil Appeal No. 501 of 1976 was decided by the Supreme Court on 25. 11. 1976. In view of the sub-section (2) of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure there is a prohibition of interference if the appeal lies against the order of decree sought to be reversed to the High Court or any Court subordinate thereto. Therefore sub-section 2 of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure places a bar on the power of the High Court to entertain any revision for reversing the decree or order against which an appeal lies to the High Court or to any Court subordinate to the High Court. In view of the present position of law under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure the present petition is not competent. Hence it is not maintainable. In view of the present position of law under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure the present petition is not competent. Hence it is not maintainable. ( 6 ) THE second contention on the point is that when the first appeal is already filed whether the first appeal as well as the revision both can be proceeded with simultaneously or not. It is a seated law that the appellate court has larger power than the revisional powers. And when the appeal is pending certainly this court also would not like to interfere with the order or decree apart from its competency or otherwise particularly in view of the fact that there are all chances of contradictory orders. In the present case if the first appeal is disposed of earlier and is decided against the plaintiff who has preferred the appeal possibly second appeal would also lie. Or if the appeal is allowed then the suit will be remanded for its decision on merits and subsequently if the revision is allowed that would also create embarrassing situation. Under these circumstances with a view to avoid contradictory orders it is desirable that this Court should not exercise its powers under section 115 of CPC when the remedy by way of appeal is already availed of. [7 to 10]revision Application Disposed of as Withdrawn. .