H. G. RAMESH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsels appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order of the Appellate Court setting aside the interlocutory order of the Trial Court granting an order of injunction in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. ( 2 ) IN my opinion, the impugned order is not a revisable order falling within the ambit of Section 115 of the CPC as even if the impugned order had been made in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, it would not have finally disposed of the suit which is pending. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, Mr. V. R. Datar, learned Counsel strenuously contends that the impugned proceeding was under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure and hence such a proceeding would fall within the ambit of the 'other proceeding envisaged under Section 115 of the CPC. ( 4 ) IN view of the above, the question that falls for determination in this revision petition is as to the connotation of the expression 'other proceeding' occurring in Section 115 of the CPC? ( 5 ) IN my opinion, an appellate proceeding relating to an interlocutory order made in a pending suit does not fall within the ambit of the 'other proceeding' referred to in Section 115 of the CPC. It also does not take within its ambit any interlocutory proceeding, whether original or appellate relating to an interlocutory order made in a suit pending final disposal. The 'other proceeding in the context only refers to a proceeding which is pending other than a proceeding which is interlocutory in nature whether original or appellate. ( 6 ) IT is needless to State that subject to the restrictions imposed under Section 115 of the CPC, a revision petition would lie against a final order which is not interlocutory in nature. ( 7 ) IT is also relevant to State that a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC would lie against any interlocutory order provided if it had been made in favour of the party presenting the revision, it would have finally disposed of the suit or the other proceeding, the other proceeding being of the nature referred to above. ( 8 ) IN view of the precondition referred to in the proviso to Section 115 (1) of the CPC, this revision petition is not maintainable as even if the impugned order had been made in favour of the petitioners, it would not have finally disposed of the suit. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, this order of dismissal will not come in the way of the petitioners availing of any other legal remedy as against the impugned order. Registry to return certified copy of the impugned order, if applied for. The revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. --- *** --- .