JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Though hearing of the aforesaid Civil Revisions were taken up separately in some cases, yet the question of law involved on the maintainability of the Civil Revisions being common to all the Civil Revisions concerning the same provi¬sion of law under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘the Code’), therefore, this common judgment shall abide the result in all such Civil Revisions. 2. Before dealing with the question of maintainability it is appropriate to indicate about the particulars of the orders which are under challenge in the aforesaid Civil Revisions. C. R.No. 432 of 2001 Judgment delivered on 29.9.2001 by the Addl. District Judge, Sonepur in Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 2001 is under challenge. Learned Addl. District Judge set aside the order temporary injunction granted by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rampur in M.J.C. No. 9 of 2000. C. R. No. 32 of 2002 Judgment delivered on 19.9.2001 by the Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No. 145 of 1996 is under challenge. It appears from the impugned order that learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cuttack granted temporary injunction in favour of the opposite party as per his order passed on 30.7.1996 in Misc. Case No. 39 of 1993 under Order, 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The appeal was dismissed by confirming to the said order of the trial Court. C.R.P. No. 64 of 2002 Judgment delivered on 10.5.2002 by the Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Balasore in Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 2001 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that petition¬er’s application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. vide Misc. Case No. 83 of 2001 was considered and allowed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Balasore, directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit land till disposal of Title Suit No. 143 of 2001. Learned Addl. District Judge vacated that order of status quo and accordingly allowed the appeal. C.R.P. No. 173 of 2002 Judgment delivered on 16.7.2002 by the Ad-hoc Addl District Judge (Fast Track Court), Balasore in Misc. Appeal No. 64 of 2001 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that the order of temporary injunction passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divi¬sion), Balasore in Misc. C.R.P. No. 173 of 2002 Judgment delivered on 16.7.2002 by the Ad-hoc Addl District Judge (Fast Track Court), Balasore in Misc. Appeal No. 64 of 2001 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that the order of temporary injunction passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divi¬sion), Balasore in Misc. Case No. 570 of 2000 was set aside and the appeal was allowed accordingly. C.R.P. No. 322 of 2002 Judgment delivered on 28.8.2002 by the Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court No. III), Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No. 29/5 of 2001-02 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that in Misc. Case No. 192 of 2000 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack on 16.3.2001 directed the parties to maintain status quo and that order was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. C.R.P. No. 19 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 16.12.2002 by the Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Puri in Misc. Appeal No. 8/32 of 2001 is under chal¬lenge. It appears from that judgment that in Misc. Case No. 173 of 1999 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Puri passed order of temporary injunction. The appellate Court confirmed to the said order and dismissed the appeal. C.R.P. No. 43 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 14.11.2002 by the Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara in Misc. Appeal No. 57 of 1999 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that application for temporary injunction filed by the defendant/petitioner in Misc. Case No. 215 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kendrapara was allowed by that Court on 14.9.1999 and consequen¬tially plaintiff was restrained by temporary injunction. Thus plaintiff preferred the aforesaid appeal. Learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the appeal by way of maintaining the order of injunction. C.R.P. No. 63 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 25.1.2003 by the Addl. District Judge, Bhadrak in F.A.O. No. 45 of 2002 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 132 of 2002 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhadrak rejected that application. Learned Addl. District Judge also dismissed the appeal. C.R.P. No. 97 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 5.2.2003 by the Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Jajpur in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2002 is under challenge. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhadrak rejected that application. Learned Addl. District Judge also dismissed the appeal. C.R.P. No. 97 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 5.2.2003 by the Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Jajpur in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2002 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that on 14.12.2001 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jajpur allowed the Misc. Case No. 77 of 2001 and issued order of temporary injunction against the defendants. Learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the ap¬peal. C.R.P. No. 181 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 15.3.2003 by learned District Judge, Cuttack in Misc. Appeal No. 97 of 2002 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divi¬sion), 1st Court, Cuttack on 17.8.2002 allowed the Misc. Case No. 70 of 2001 and granted temporary injunction against the defend¬ants. Learned District Judge, after hearing both the parties, set aside that order, vacated the order of temporary injunction and accordingly allowed the appeal. C. R. P. No. 184 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 7.3.2003 in Misc. Judicial Appeal No. 19 of 2002 of Court of District Judge, Bolangir is under chal¬lenge. It appears from that impugned order that learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patnagarh on 11.11.2002 dismissed the M.J.C. No. 17 of 2002 by rejecting the application for temporary injunction. Learned District Judge dismissed the appeal. C.R.P. No. 194 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 4.4.2003 by the First Addl. District Judge, Puri in Misc. Appeal No. 21/86 of 2003-02 is under chal¬lenge. It appears from that judgment that Misc. Case No. 44 of 2002 filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was heard and the prayer for temporary injunction was rejected as per the order passed on 10.5.2002. Learned Addl. District Judge main¬tained that order and dismissed the appeal. C.R.P. No. 200 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 10.5.2003 in Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 2003 of the Court of District Judge, Cuttack is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that in Civil Misc. Application No. 1 of 2003 learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack on 21.1.2003 declined to pass order of temporary injunction. Learned District Judge upheld the same and dismissed the appeal. C.R.P. No. 204 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 30.1.2003 by the Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Jajpur in Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 2000 is under Challenge. Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack on 21.1.2003 declined to pass order of temporary injunction. Learned District Judge upheld the same and dismissed the appeal. C.R.P. No. 204 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 30.1.2003 by the Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Jajpur in Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 2000 is under Challenge. It appears from that order that learned Addl. District Judge set aside the order of temporary injunction grant¬ed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jajpur in Misc. Case No. 117 of 2000. C. R. P. No. 233 of 2003 Judgment delivered on 13.5.2003 by the Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dhenkanal in F.A.O. No. 3 of 2003 is under challenge. It appears from that judgment that learned Addl. District Judge maintained the order of status quo directed by learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Kamakshayangar in Misc. Case No. 22 of 2001. 3. Argument was advanced at the Bar advocating for the maintainability of the Civil Revisions as against the impugned orders passed by the appellate Courts. In that context learned counsel representing the petitioners in the aforesaid Civil Revisions advanced argument separately. The sum total of their contentions is that : (i) the above category of cases come within the meaning of the term ‘case decided’; (ii) a proceeding under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, C.P.C. come within the meaning of the term ‘proceeding’ as provided in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code. In that respect the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’ cannot be followed to exclude such Misc. Cases and Misc. Appeals from the category of other proceedings. In that context, the view expressed by this Court in the case of M/s. Simplex Engineering and Foundary Works Ltd. and two others v. Bhubaneswar Pattnaik, 2003 (I) OLR-508, holds the field; (iii) the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/s. Swaraj Develop¬ers and Ors. 2003 (I) OLR (SC)-673, stands in support of main¬tainability of Civil Revision and not against it; and (iv) serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners and the cause of ends of justice if the impugned orders are not revised in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. 4. 2003 (I) OLR (SC)-673, stands in support of main¬tainability of Civil Revision and not against it; and (iv) serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners and the cause of ends of justice if the impugned orders are not revised in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. 4. It is the settled principle of law that a decision on application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code either by allowing or by rejecting it, shall come within the meaning of the term ‘case decided’. There can be no quarrel on the principle. 5. In the case of Sri Vishnu Awatar etc. etc. v. Shiv Autar and others, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1575, the Apex Court have a considered opinion that the term ‘suit’ or ‘other proceeding’ employed under Section 115 of the Code is to be given a proper meaning by applying the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’. Accord¬ingly, their Lordships have excluded the cases arising in a suit to be a proceeding within the meaning of the term ‘suit’ or ‘other proceeding’ incorporated in Section 115 of the Code. That decision was not brought to the notice of this Court in the case of M/s. Simplex Engineering (supra). Therefore, this Court has interpreted that term and recorded finding that a case which is appealable under Order, 43, Rule 1 of the Code and transferable under Section 24 of the Code, should come within the meaning of the term ‘proceeding’. Such cases may still come within the meaning of the term ‘proceeding’ but not for the purpose under Section 115 of the Code when the term ‘proceeding’ in Section 115 has to be read ejusdem generis with the term ‘suit’. Under such circumstance, any Misc. Case arising in or out of a suit shall not come within the meaning of the term’ proceeding’ in the context of suit or other proceeding employed in Section 115 of the Code. 6. In the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society (supra), considering similar contentions relating to maintain¬ability of the Civil Revisions, in paragraph-32 of the reported decision, their Lordships have been pleased to propound as fol¬lows : “32. A plain reading of Section 115 as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given final¬ity to suit or other proceeding. A plain reading of Section 115 as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given final¬ity to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is ‘yes’ then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is ‘no’ then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is of interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not a maintainable. The legislative intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115. There is marked distinction in language of Section 97 (3) of the Old Amendment Act and Section 32 (2)(i) of the Amendment Act. While in the former there was clear legislative intent to save applications admitted or pending before the amendment came into force. Such an intent is significantly absent in Section 32 (2)(i). The Amendment relates to procedures. No person has a vested right in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a statutory change the mode of procedure is altered the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception, unless there is a differ¬ent stipulation." A conjoint reading of the ratios in the case of Sri Vishnu Awatar (supra) and Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society (supra), and keeping in view the provision of law as it stands in Section 115 and particularly in Sub-section (2) of Section 115, this Court finds that the applications for temporary injunction before the trial Court are not the lis, whose determination would finally decide the dispute and dispose of the suit and other proceedings. They are interlocutory in nature. They remain in force till disposal of the suit and not beyond that unless there is a decree. Under such circumstances all the aforesaid Civil Revisions are not maintainable in view of the amendment of Section 115 by Act 46 of 1999. The above quoted passage also sufficiently indi¬cates that the provision of law under that Section shall apply to all pending cases. Under such circumstance, petitioners do not get relief on that score also so far as the revision applications which were filed prior to Act 46 of 1999 came into force. 7. The above quoted passage also sufficiently indi¬cates that the provision of law under that Section shall apply to all pending cases. Under such circumstance, petitioners do not get relief on that score also so far as the revision applications which were filed prior to Act 46 of 1999 came into force. 7. In the result, all the Civil Revision stand dismissed as not maintainable. Revision dismissed.