None appears for the petitioner. Miss Sundari, learned counsel appears for the respondents 1, 3 and 4. 2. From the perusal of the records, it appears that the present revision petition is directed against 2( two) orders i.e. order dated 8.7.2003 passed in Original Suit No.15 of 1995/ 3/ 2002 wherein and where under the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur West dismissed the suit on non-prosecution under Order XV Rule 4 CPC and another order i.e., 7.6.2003 passed in Original Suit No. 15 of 1995/3/2002 wherein and where under the learned Addl.District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur West closed the examination of witnesses of the PWs for the reasons mentioned therein. 3. At the very outset, Miss Sundari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 strenuously submits that this revision petition is not maintainable in the present form inasmuch as this present revision petition is against 2(two) separate orders of the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur West dated 8.7.2003 passed in Original Suit No. 15 of 1995/3/2002 and another order dated 7.6.2003 passed in Original Suit No. 15 of 1995/3/2002. This court is of the considered view that the submission of Miss. Sundari, learned counsel for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 has force of law. 4. The second objection from the side of Miss Sundari, learned counsel for the respondents 1,3 and 4 is that because of the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 under Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 ( 46 of 1999), there is a drastic change in the section 115 of the CPC. Under the amended section 115 of the CPC, a review petition does not lie against interlocutory orders of the present nature. In order to substantiate her case of the respondents, a judgment and order of this court passed in Makhan Ch.Deb v. Puran Baraik & ors. reported in 2004(2) GLT 98 had been pressed into service. From the perusal of the judgment and order of this court passed in Makhan Ch.Deb v. Puran Baraik & ors.(supra), it appears that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this court in Makhan Ch.Deb v. Puran Baraik & ors.(supra). 5. For the reasons discussed above, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.