MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT is the plaintiff who instituted O. S. No. 1207 of 2000 for perpetual injunction against the petitioner-defendant herein. He also filed an application in I. A. No. 118 of 2000 before the trial Court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. seeking temporary injunction which was dismissed initially by order dated 11-4-2000. Later, the matter was carried before the lower appellate Court in CMA No. 158 of 2000 which was allowed by order dated 18-9-2000. Thereafter, the matter was brought to this Court by way of Civil Revision Petition and this Court while allowing the revision, remitted the matter to the trial Court for a fresh decision on the basis of material that would be placed before the said Court. ( 2 ) CONSEQUENT upon the remittal order, the trial Court took up I. A. No. 118 of 2000 and after hearing both sides dismissed the same on 25-8-2001. However, the trial Court directed the respondent who is the petitioner herein not to make any further construction in the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-plaintiff carried the matter in appeal in CMA No. 319 of 2001 before the lower appellate Court. By order dated 15-4-2003 the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal while setting aside the order dated 25-8-2000 made in I. A. No. 118 of 2000 by the trial Court and granted temporary injunction. It is this order which is challenged before this Court by the defendant in the suit. ( 3 ) WHEN this revision is taken up for consideration, Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing along with Sri M. P. Chandra Mouli, counsel for the respondent-plaintiff raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of C. P. C. contending that no revision lies against the impugned order in view of the amendment brought to the provisions under Section 115 of C. P. C. by Act No. 46 of 1999. According to the learned senior counsel, by Section 12 (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 which came into force from 1-7-2002, as a result of amendment made to the provisions under Section 115 of C. P. C. , the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 cannot be invoked as a matter of routine but only under exceptional circumstances as set out in the said amendment. Placing reliance of a decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/s. Swaraj Developers, (2003) 1 Decisions Today (SC) 392, learned senior counsel contended that the Hon ble Supreme Court has examined the effect of amendment brought to Section 115 of C. P. C. which came into force from 1-7-2002 in the said decision and held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115, C. P. C. cannot be invoked as a matter of routine but only when the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. Under these circumstances only, a revision lies to the High Court under Section 115 of C. P. C. Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order does not have the effect of finally disposing of either the suit or proceedings and as such, the C. R. P. is not maintainable as against the impugned order and therefore, sought for dismissal of the same. ( 4 ) SRI Vilas Afzalpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant on the contrary submitted that even after the amendment, two learned Judges of this Court have taken a view that the revision is maintainable under Section 115 of C. P. C. and as such, the revision cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether this Civil Revision Petition is maintainable before this Court in view of the amendment brought to the provisions under Section 115 of C. P. C. which came into force from 1-7-2002? ( 6 ) SINCE the issue involved in this revision centers round the interpretation of the provisions under Section 115 of C. P. C. , it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 115 of C. P. C. as they stood before and after the amendment. ( 6 ) SINCE the issue involved in this revision centers round the interpretation of the provisions under Section 115 of C. P. C. , it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 115 of C. P. C. as they stood before and after the amendment. Section 115 of C. P. C. (Before Amendment): (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 order 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. (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. Explanation: In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. Explanation: In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. " section 115 (After Amendment): (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; (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 order or proceeding, except 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. (2) The High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court. Explanation: In this Section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding the issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. Explanation: In this Section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding the issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. " ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in Prem Bakshi v. Dharam Dev, AIR 2002 SC 559 while dealing with the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the provisions of Section 115 of C. P. C. before the Amendment Act, 1999, at Para 5 held thus :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 disposes 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 dispose 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 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 ). " ( 8 ) IN the said case, the Supreme Court was examining the correctness of the order which was made in an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. seeking amendment of plaint. At para 7 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held thus:"from the facts extracted above, it would show that appellants only wanted to bring to the notice of the Court the subsequent facts and after amendment of the plaint, respondent No. 1 would get opportunity to file written statement and he would be able to raise all this defence. Ultimately, if the suit is decided against the respondent No. 1, he would have a chance to take up these points before the appellate Court. Ultimately, if the suit is decided against the respondent No. 1, he would have a chance to take up these points before the appellate Court. It cannot be conceived of a situation that the proposed amendment if allowed would cause irreparable injury or failure of justice as the remedy of the respondent No. 1, as stated above, is by way of an appeal. We are, therefore, of the view that the order allowing the amendment would not come under clause (b ). " ( 9 ) IN Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society s case (cited supra), the Supreme Court while comparing the provisions of Section 115 of C. P. C. before and after amendment held thus:8. A comparison of two provisions shows that while proviso (a) of the unamended provision has been retained in its totality, in the amended provisions clause (b) of the proviso has been omitted. 9. It is to be noted that prior to the amendment to the Code by the Old Amendment Act, the power of revision was wider. By the amendment, certain positive restriction were put on the High Court s power to deal with revisions under Section 115. Prior to the said amendment, it was not strictly necessary that the impugned order would have the result of finally deciding the lis or the proceedings in the lower Courts. In fact, the power could be exercised in any case where jurisdictional error was committed by the original Court or where substantial injustice had resulted. By the old Amendment Act, the condition of finally deciding of lis and the proceedings in the subordinate Courts was introduced. The proviso which was introduced contains qualifications which are pre-requisites before exercise of power under Section 115. They were clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso. Logically, the High Court has suo motu power to revise an order where total failure to justice would have occasioned or where irreparable loss would have caused to the parties against whom it was made. These powers were retained by clause (b ). Though, after 1976, the exercise of power was somewhat circumscribed, it was not totally curtailed. In other words, the High Court could even after the 1976 amendment interfere in cases where there was failure of justice or irreparable loss caused, the nature of the proceedings was substantially changed and the suo motu power of the High Court was retained. Though, after 1976, the exercise of power was somewhat circumscribed, it was not totally curtailed. In other words, the High Court could even after the 1976 amendment interfere in cases where there was failure of justice or irreparable loss caused, the nature of the proceedings was substantially changed and the suo motu power of the High Court was retained. It was in the nature of power of superintendence of the High Court over the subordinate Courts. Changes were related to indicating limitations in exercise of power. ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court at Paras 14, 15 and 32 of the judgment further held thus:14. Section 115 is essentially a source of power for the High Court to supervise the subordinate Courts. It does not in any way confer a right on a litigant aggrieved by any order of the subordinate Court to approach the High Court for relief. The scope for making a revision under Section 115 is not linked with a substantive right. 15. Language of Sections 96 and 100 of the Code which deal with appeals can be compared with Section 115 of the Code. While in the former two provisions specially provide for right of appeal, the same is not the position vis-a-vis Section 115. It does not speak of an application being made by a person aggrieved by an order of subordinate Court. As noted above, it is a source of power of the High Court to have effective control on the functioning of the subordinate Courts by exercising supervisory power. 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 finality 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 be 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. 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 different stipulation. " ( 11 ) BEFORE the Amendment Act, 1999, clauses (a) and (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of unamended Section 115 of C. P. C. were invoked for filing a revision before the High Court. Thus, a party approaching the High Court under 115 of C. P. C. by way of a revision has to necessarily satisfy the requirements specified thereunder. However, after the Amendment Act, 1999 which has come into effect from 1-7-2002, the position is changed. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) has been totally withdrawn. With the result, the only ground available for approaching the High Court under Section 115 is clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 115, C. P. C. , viz. "if the order has been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. " The effect of the provisions under Section 115 of C. P. C. after amendment is that a revision petition is maintainable only if the impugned order has got the effect of disposing of the suit or proceedings finally. In all other cases where if the impugned order is of interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. ( 12 ) KEEPING these principles in view, if we look at the facts of the case, the suit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff for a perpetual injunction. In all other cases where if the impugned order is of interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. ( 12 ) KEEPING these principles in view, if we look at the facts of the case, the suit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff for a perpetual injunction. Along with the suit, an application in I. A. No. 118 of 2000 was also filed before the trial Court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. seeking temporary injunction, which was dismissed. The matter was carried in appeal by way of CMA No. 158 of 2000 before the lower appellate Court which allowed the same by order dated 18-9-2000. The matter was then carried to this Court by way of a revision by the petitioner and this Court disposed of the said revision remitting the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal of I. A. No. 118 of 2000. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said I. A. by order dated 25-8-2001 against which the respondent-plaintiff filed CMA No. 319 of 2001 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court by the impugned order granted temporary injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant, staff and employees, henchmen from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the plaint schedule land. On a perusal of the impugned order, I am of the considered view, it is not in the nature of finally disposing of the suit or other proceedings. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra and in the light of the amended provisions of Section 115 of C. P. C. I am inclined to hold that this revision is not maintainable. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ( 13 ) AFTER dismissal of this revision, counsel for the petitioner-defendant pleaded that the petitioner-defendant seeks to take alternative steps including taking the matter to the Supreme Court and therefore, sought stay of the operation of the impugned order for a period of one month. Though counsel for the respondent-plaintiff opposed this request, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I grant three weeks time from today to the petitioner-defendant to take appropriate steps according to law. Till such time, the impugned order shall not be given effect to. Revision dismissed.