JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The Petitioners in this revision are the Defendants in Title Suit No. 69 of 2000 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, and they have challenged the order, dated 27.11.2002, passed in the suit, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint made by the Plaintiff-opposite party has been allowed by the learned trial Court. 2. In a nutshell, the material facts leading to this revision may be narrated as follows: The Plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 69/2000 aforementioned seeking, inter alia, declaration of Plaintiffs right as co-owner over the suit property claiming the same to be a joint property of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Defendants filed their written statement laying counter-claim over the property. In the suit so instituted, the Plaintiffs submitted an application for amendment of the plaint, whereby a prayer was made to the effect that a decree for partition of the suit property by also granted. This application for amendment was resisted by the Defendants on the ground, inter alia, that the amendments, sought for, would change the nature and character of the plaint. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the prayer for amendment was, as indicated hereinabove, allowed by the impugned order. 3. The short point, which arises for consideration in the present revision, is this: can an order allowing amendment of pleadings be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2000? 4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners-Defendants, and I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order. 5. Before entering into the merit of the order, it is pertinent to refer to, and quote hereinbelow, Section 115 as it existed before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, was given effect to on 1st of July, 2002. Section 115, as per the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, read as follows: 115. 5. Before entering into the merit of the order, it is pertinent to refer to, and quote hereinbelow, Section 115 as it existed before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, was given effect to on 1st of July, 2002. Section 115, as per the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, read as follows: 115. Revision: (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears: (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit; 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- (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 proceeding, 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. 6. A careful reading of the above unamended provisions of Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure reveals that an order, which decided a case, but not appealable, could have been interfered with, in revision, if the subordinate Court appeared to have exercise of the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or have failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it or have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. This exercise of revisional power was, however, subject to two conditions, which were embodied in Clause (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 115(1), namely, (a) that the order, which is sought to get revised, was such that if the order had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, it would have terminated the suit or the proceeding, or (b) if the order was such that it could cause, if allowed to stand, failure of justice or irreparable loss or injury to the party against whom the order was made. 7. I am guided to adopt the above views from the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi and Ors. v. Dharam Dev and Ors. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 2 . In this case, the Apex Court laid down as follows: 4. In Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon this Court considered the expression "any case which has been decided" in Sub-section (1) of Section115 Code of Civil Procedure and held that the expression 'case' is a word of comprehensive import and includes civil proceedings other than suits and is not restricted by anything contained in the said section to the entirety of the proceeding in a civil Court and to interpret the expression 'case' as an entire proceeding only and not a part of the proceeding would impose an unwarranted restriction on the exercise of powers of superintendence by the High Court. This view of the High Court has now been legislatively adopted by Parliament by introducing the explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section115 Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, an interlocutory order would be revisable. There is no doubt that the present order being an interlocutory order is revisable under Section 115, but for exercising powers under this section by the High Court, the order must satisfy one of the conditions mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso. 5. There is no doubt that the present order being an interlocutory order is revisable under Section 115, but for exercising powers under this section by the High Court, the order must satisfy one of the conditions mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso. 5. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 115 puts a restriction on the powers of the High Court inasmuch as the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made or any order deciding a issue, in course of a suit or other proceedings, except where (i) the order made would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings, or (ii) the said order would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. Under Clause (a), the High Court would be justified in interfering with an order of a subordinate Court if the said order finally disposes of the suit or other proceeding. By way of illustration, we may say that if a trial Court holds by an interlocutory order that it has no jurisdiction to proceed with the case or that suit is barred by limitation, it would amount to finally deciding the case and such order would be revisable. The order in question by which the amendment was allowed could not be said to have finally disposed of the case and, therefore, it would not come under Clause (a). 6. Now the question is whether the order in question has caused failure of justice or irreparable injury to Respondent No. 1. It is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possibly cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. Perhaps the converse is possible i.e. refusal to permit the amendment sought for could in certain situations result in miscarriage of justice. After all, amendments of the pleadings would not amount to decisions on the issue involved. They only would serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. Hence, we cannot envisage a situation where amendment of pleadings, whatever be the nature of such amendment, would have remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. (Emphasis is supplied) 8. They only would serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. Hence, we cannot envisage a situation where amendment of pleadings, whatever be the nature of such amendment, would have remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. (Emphasis is supplied) 8. What is, now, of paramount importance to note is that Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 115(1) has been deleted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. 9. The question, therefore, is as to what will be the effect of the deletion of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 115(1)? The answer to this question is not very difficult to seek. 10. In the past, i.e., before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, came into force, an order, which suffered from jurisdictional error, could have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 if the order under challenge was likely to cause failure of justice or irreparable loss or injury to the party approaching the revisional Court, but with Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 115(1) having been deleted under the new Act, the implication is that even if an order suffers from jurisdictional error or causes failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party approaching the Court, the order will not be interfered within revision unless the order, which is sought to get revised, is such that had the order been made in favour of the party applying for revision, it would have terminated the suit or the proceeding. 11. What is, now, imperative to ascertain is as to whether an order, whereby amendment of a plaint or written statement is allowed, can be interfered within revision. While considering this aspect of the matter, it is worth noticing that an application for amendment can be said to have given rise to a proceeding within the suit. The word 'proceeding', occurring in the proviso to Section 115(1), will obviously not include an order passed in a suit or proceedings during the progress thereof, but will mean proceedings, including miscellaneous proceedings, during the pendency of the suit or otherwise. In other words, 'proceeding', as used in the proviso to Section 115(1), will mean proceedings arising out of, or independent of, the suit. In other words, 'proceeding', as used in the proviso to Section 115(1), will mean proceedings arising out of, or independent of, the suit. Hence, an order allowing amendment cannot be said to have been passed in a proceeding. Every application made during the progress of the suit or orders passed therein cannot be treated to be a proceeding. It is, therefore, clear that even if the impugned order was passed in favour of the present Petitioner, it would not have determined the suit. Viewed from this angle, the impugned order is not a revisable order. 12. For coming to the above conclusion, I have also taken into consideration the decision in the case of Sri K. Anjaneya Setty v. Sri K.H. Rangiah Setty AIR 2002 Kar 387 . In this case, while dealing with the ambit of Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, as it is stands now, the Court has laid down as follows: In view of the amendment made in Section 115 of the Code, 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 of the Code 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. (Emphasis is supplied) 13. I respectfully agree with the above observations of the Court in K. Anjaneya Setty (supra). 14. Realising that the present application may not be maintained under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. Goswami has urged before this Court that by the impugned order, the entire character and nature of the suit has been changed and, hence, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, may interfere with such an order. 15. Goswami has urged before this Court that by the impugned order, the entire character and nature of the suit has been changed and, hence, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, may interfere with such an order. 15. While dealing with the above aspect of the matter, it is apposite to refer, once again, to the case of Prem Bakshi (supra), wherein the Apex Court observed thus: It is almost inconceivable how mere amendments of pleadings could possibly cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. The converse is possible i.e. refusal to permit the amendment sought for could in certain situations result in miscarriage of justice. After all, amendments of the pleadings would not amount to decisions on the issue involved. They would only serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. Therefore, it is not possible to envisage a situation where amendment of pleadings, whatever be the nature of such amendment, would even remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. (Emphasis is added) 16. Upon considering the application for amendment vis-a-vis the objection raised thereto and the impugned order, I find that the Plaintiff had earlier sought, inter alia, declaration of his right of ownership over the suit property as a co-owner and by the amendment, sought for, the Plaintiff wanted, inter alia, a decree for partition of the suit. The amendment, so sought for, is not such, which, if allowed to stand good on record, will cause miscarriage of justice inasmuch as the factual aspects of the plaint remain the same and only the reliefs, sought for, become additional. On the basis of the pleadings, if a relief can be granted, it cannot be refused to be granted on the mere ground that the relief has not been sought for, originally, when the suit was instituted. In fact, if such an amendment is not allowed, it may cause serious miscarriage of justice. This apart, proper issues can be framed in the suit to determine the maintainability of the relief of partition and the issues, so framed, can be decided in the face of the facts pleaded by the Plaintiff and the evidence to be adduced by the parties. This apart, proper issues can be framed in the suit to determine the maintainability of the relief of partition and the issues, so framed, can be decided in the face of the facts pleaded by the Plaintiff and the evidence to be adduced by the parties. It is trite that on the basis of the pleadings, if a relief can be made available to the party concerned and if such a relief is sought for by way of amendment of the pleadings, the prayer for amendment of the pleadings cannot be disallowed. 17. In short, the present one is not such a case, where the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution deserve to be involved. 18. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this revision is not admitted and the same shall stand dismissed in limini. 19. No order as to costs. 20. Send forthwith a copy of this order to the learned Court below. Petition dismissed