JUDGMENT 1. - Revisionist-plaintiff-Pushkar Datta Joshi has filed this revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 21.11.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Sikar in Civil suit No. 26/2001. Present revisionist has field an application under Order 11, Rule 14 of CPC before the trial Court but that application was rejected, therefore, this revision petition has been filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist at the admission stage. 3. After the amendment in Code of Civil Procedure by the Act of 46 of 1999, revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has been materially restricted. Provision of Section 115 of CPC has been materially changed and now that proviso to Section 115 of CPC is as under:- "Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suitor other proceedings." 4. On this point, judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of KR Subbaraju v. Vasavi Trading Co. & Ors., AIR 2002 Karnataka 407 is relevant in which it has been held:- "In view of the amendment made in Section 115 of the Code by amendment Act 46 of 1999, which has become operative from 1.7.2002, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has now been materially restricted. The effect of the amendment is that even if the order sought to be impugned suffers from jurisdictional error, it cannot be interfered with under section 115 unless it can be shown and found that if the order impugned would have been made in favour of the party applying for revision, it would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. The words "other proceedings" used in the proviso has to be understood as speaking about proceedings divorced of the suit." 5. The words "other proceedings" used in the proviso has to be understood as speaking about proceedings divorced of the suit." 5. In the same way, judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the case of Phool Singh v. Mavla @ Bhavaliya & Ors., AIR 20002 Madhya Pradesh 246 is also very material and in this judgment it has been held:- "The Legislature has clearly intended to limit the jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising the powers under revision and now that can only be exercised in cases where 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 otherwise not. Therefore, the clear meaning is that now no revision would be maintainable against any interlocutory order if it would not have the effect of finally disposing of the suit or other proceedings." 6. After perusing the above mentioned judgments and examining amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the view that now revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has been materially curtailed. The effect of the amendment in the proviso is that even if the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error, it cannot be interfered with under section 115 CPC unless it can be shown that if that order would have been passed in favour of the party applying for revision that the order would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. It is also clear that the word "other proceedings" used in the proviso should be taken as proceedings divorced of the suit. It should be an independent proceeding. 7. I have examined the impugned order in the light of above discussion and after examining this impugned order, I am of the view that this impugned order is not such an order about which it can be said that if this impugned order would have been passed in favour of the present revisionist, it would have finally disposed of the suit. Therefore, I am of the view that this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. 9. Therefore, I am of the view that this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. 9. However, it is made clear that if the suit pending before the trial Court is disposed of and any appeal is filed against that judgment then the present plaintiff-revisionist would be at liberty to raise those objections and points also ,in that appeal which he has raised in this revision petition.Revision petition dismissed. *******