1. Heard Mr. N. Surendrajait Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-association. 2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Manipur East dated 15.12.2003 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge, Manipur East allowed the Civil Misc. Appeal NO. 8 of 2003 preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Imphal East dated 21.2.2003 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 91 of 2002 (Ref: O.S. NO.27 of 2002). The petitioner -association filed the Original Suit No.27 of 2002 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Imphal East, Lamphelpat against the present respondent for a decree for permanent injunction order against the present respondent/defendant and its members from entering into the suit land. It is said that the petitioner-association also filed an application for granting temporary injunction which has been registered as Judicial Misc. Case No.91 of 2002 in the O.S.No.27 of 2002. 3. The precise fact of the case of the petitioner -association is that the petitioner- Association is registered in the year 1984. Undisputedly the suit land is a government khash land measuring an area of 8.10 acre covered by Dag No.252 of Village No.80 Okshu, Imphal East Tahasil. It is said that the suit land has been using and occupying by the petitioner-association for the last many years. It is said that the manners of occupation of the suit land by the petitioner-association are: - (I) by constructing office building and (2) using as a playground. The defendant-association had interfered with the peaceful possession of the suit land by the petitioner-association. Such being the situation, petitioner-association filed Original Suit No.27 of 2002 against the respondent-association for permanent injunction as well as temporary injunction. 4. The only case of the defendant-association is that the suit land had been possessing by the plaintiff-association and defendant-association jointly. In that regard, they produced some documents. 5. The Trial Court passed the judgment and order dated 21.2.2003 in Judl. Misc. Case No.91 of 2002 (Ref: O.S.NO.27 of 2002 restraining the defendant/respondent-association and their agents from interfering with the possession of the suit land by the petitioner-association. 6. The defendant/respondent-association preferred an appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2003 against the judgment and order of the learned trial court, i.e. Civil Judge (Jr. Misc. Case No.91 of 2002 (Ref: O.S.NO.27 of 2002 restraining the defendant/respondent-association and their agents from interfering with the possession of the suit land by the petitioner-association. 6. The defendant/respondent-association preferred an appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2003 against the judgment and order of the learned trial court, i.e. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Imphal East dated 21.2.2003 passed in Judl. Misc. Case NO.91 of 2002 before the learned District Judge, Manipur East. 7. The learned first appellate court, i.e. District Judge, Manipur East, passed the reasoned judgment and order dated 15.12.2003 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2003 by setting aside the judgment and order of the trial court, i.e. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Imphal East dated 21.2.2003 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 91 of 2002. It appears that the learned first appellate court in its judgment and order dated 15.12.2003 had come to the findings that the learned Trial Court while passing the order dated 21.2.2003 in Judl.Misc. Case No.91 of 2003 had not discussed thoroughly the documents filed by the defendant-association as well as the appellant/plaintiff. Against the judgment and order of the first appellate court, i.e. the District Judge, Manipur East, dated 15.12.2003 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2003 the present revision petition or application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed. 8. Mr. N. Surendrajit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-association has strenuously and capably put up the case of the appellant/plaintiff. But this Court observed that the amendment of the CPC by Act 46 of 1999 is based on the Malimath Committee's recommendations. The amended section 115 CPC, does not permit a revision petition being filed against an order disposing of an appeal against order of the trial court whether confirming, revisioning or modifying the injunction granted by the trial court. The reason is that the order of the High Court passed either way would not have the effect of finally disposing the suit or other proceedings. The reason is that the order of the High Court passed either way would not have the effect of finally disposing the suit or other proceedings. Even after the amendment of the CPC on the recommendation of the Malimath Committee, the interlocutory order, passed by the subordinate courts to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227of the constitution of India. The rationale behind giving wide power to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for keeping the subordinates court to the High Court within the bound of their jurisdiction. The High Court still has the power of judicial review of the interlocutory order which would finally amount to disposing of the suit or proceedings and also the interlocutory order which shall cause a great injustice to the parties. 9. In the instant case, the judgment and order of the trial court as well as of the appellate court in the said miscellaneous appeal will not amount to finally disposing of the civil suit, i.e. Original Suit No.27 of 2002. The petitioner-association, could not make out a case that the learned first appellate court had acted or exercised the jurisdiction with material irregularities in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2003 in the Civil Misc. Appeal No.8 of 2003. 10. Having regards to the above submissions, this court is of the considered view that the present revision petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial court should make an endeavour to dispose of the Original Suit No.27 of 2002 as expeditiously as possible so as not to cause any injustice to either of the parties because of the delay in disposing of the Original Suit No.27 of 2002.