Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This civil revision application is taken up along with Civil Revision No. 228 of 1995 (R) for disposal as both the cases relate to the same question. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned orders, the courts below at Ranchi, has rejected the petition filed for seeking time to move before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition against the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 173 of 1993 (R) passed on 23.5.1995 by a Single Judge of this Court. 3. The facts are not required to be reiterated. Only this much can be said that in the arbitration suit - the original court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner against which civil revision application was preferred as mentioned above, but that civil revision application was rejected by this Court without giving any reasons. Then the matter was referred to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition and the case was sent back to this Court again with a direction for disposal of the civil revision application with reasons. Then the matter was again heard on remand before a single Judge and then the same was disposed of by order dated 23.5.1995 again rejecting the civil revision application. Against this order, the petitioner wants to move in Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and lor that purpose they filed a petition before the original court seeking time to get the stay order from the Apex Court, but by the impugned order dated 26.6.1995, the prayer was rejected on the ground that the case being a long pending one and at the fag end of the trial. Against this order, the present revision application has been filed. 4. Mr. Eqbal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously, argued that time as prayed for ought to have been granted to give an opportunity to the petitioner to get the stay order from the Apex Court. Mr. Debi Prasad, appearing for the opposite party took the point that such revision petition is not maintainable as after the amendment of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no scope for entertaining the revision petition against such order. Mr. Eqbal, on the maintainability points has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Awadh Kishore Singh and Anr. V/s. Sri Brij Bihari Singh and Ors. Mr. Eqbal, on the maintainability points has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Awadh Kishore Singh and Anr. V/s. Sri Brij Bihari Singh and Ors. -- wherein it was held that in view of the amendment made in Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the case of Major S.S. Khanna V/s. Brig. F.J. Dilon -- and Baldevdas Shivlal and Anr. V/s. Filmistan Distributors (India) Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1970 Supreme Court 406 are no longer good law and that the expression "case decided" does not preclude revision against the orders passed by the Subordinate Court in a suit or proceeding if the other ingredients of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied. 5. I have got reservation regarding the decision arrived at by a Division Bench but as per judicial discipline, I am bound by the decision of Division Bench. Even stretching the scope to its elastic limit, then also I am of the view that prayer rejecting time in a suit or proceeding cannot attract order within the perview of Sec. 115 of the Code of Ccivil Procedure for the purpose of revision, I am of the view that both the. civil revision applications are not entertainable, but I must observe that judicial decorum needs of granting time till the period of limitation of filing of the appeal or revision before a higher Court for testing the judgment/order of the Court below. In my view, the learned court below was too harsh in not granting time to the petitioner for getting the order tested before the Apex Court more so in view of the attending circumstances as mentioned above in the present case. 6. Both the revision petitions are dismissed with the above observations, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.