JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel. 2. Since the controversy involved in the present writ petition is that as to whether against issuance of notice in a regular suit, civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable or not, the question is purely legal, hence the issuance of notice to opposite-parties No. 2 to 12 is dispensed with. 3. With the consent of the parties’ Counsel, I proceed to hear the matter finally at the admission stage. 4. Petitioner claims to be owner and in possession of Plot No. 531/1 situated at Mohalla Sahjadpur Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. Opposite party No. 2 had filed a regular suit for injunction against the petitioner. He has impleaded the petitioner’s family members and near relative as defendant. The suit was filed on 8.9.2005 alongwith application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court being not satisfied at initial stage issued notices to the defendants on the application moved for temporary injunction. Feeling aggrieved with the issuance of notice by the trial Court, the petitioner had filed a Civil Revision No. 102 of 2005 before learned District Judge, Ambedkarnagar. A revision was admitted by the opposite party No. 1 on 26.9.2005 and notices were issued. It has also been stated by the petitioner that the plaintiff/ respondents had committed fraud to obtain ex parte injunction by preferring a revision. The allegations have been raised relating to alleged commission of fraud by the plaintiff in para 8 of the writ petition. 5. Solitary ground raised by the petitioner’s Counsel is that the learned District Judge, had acted without jurisdiction while entertaining revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In para 7 of the writ petition learned Counsel for the petitioner had referred some of the Judgments reported in 2003 (3) AWC 2198 (SC), Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society Nagpur v. Swaraj Developer and others; 2006 (24) LCD 798, 2006(2) J.C.L.R. 977, Imamuddin v. Mohd. Yousuf and others; 2006 (2) JCLR 961 . In para 7 of the writ petition learned Counsel for the petitioner had referred some of the Judgments reported in 2003 (3) AWC 2198 (SC), Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society Nagpur v. Swaraj Developer and others; 2006 (24) LCD 798, 2006(2) J.C.L.R. 977, Imamuddin v. Mohd. Yousuf and others; 2006 (2) JCLR 961 . Narendra Kumar v. Nagar Nigam Bareilly and others; 2006 (1) JCLR 437 , M/s. Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited v. Lucknow Docesan Trust and others; 2006 (6) ALJ (NOC) 240 : 2006 (3) ARC 156, Cantonment Board and others v. District Judge Incharge Lucknow and others, to advance his argument that revision against the issuance of notice in pending suit on application of injunction is not maintainable. 6. On the other hand attention has been invited of this Court towards a Judgement of this Court reported in 2006 RD 322, Algu v. Bhola, whether Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court had recorded a finding that a revision against the issuance of notice shall be maintainable. 7. Now the question arises whether revision shall be maintainable or not? While deciding the case of Algu (supra), Hon’ble Single Judge had distinguished the Judgement of Shiv Shakti (supra) by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Though relying upon various Apex Court and Division Bench judgments of this Court it was settled by one another Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in a case reported in 2006 (24) LCD 798, Cantonment Board and others v. District Judge Incharge lucknow and others, that against issuance of notice revision shall not be maintainable. But for the reasons best known to the member of Bar they have not referred for consideration of the judgement of Cantonment Board and others v. District Judge, Incharge Lucknow and others (supra) when the controversy of the case of Algu was before Hon’ble Single Judge for adjudication. While deciding the judgement of Cantonment Board (supra) Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court had considered the Apex Court judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 497 , S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon; AIR 1966 SC 153 . Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others; 2003 (6) SCC 659 . Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society. While deciding the judgement of Cantonment Board (supra) Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court had considered the Apex Court judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 497 , S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon; AIR 1966 SC 153 . Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others; 2003 (6) SCC 659 . Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society. Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and others; 2005 (5) SCC 527 , Gayatri Devi and others v. Shashi Pal Singh; AIR 2000 SC 3032 , A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and others; 2002 (2) SCC 440 , Neelakantan v. Mallika Begum. 9. It has also been held in the case of Cantonment Board (supra) that litigant will have no alternative remedy to face the hardship in case jurisdiction of revisional power is curtailed. Relying upon the observation made by Apex Court in a case reported in 2003 (21) LCD 1046, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, Hon’ble single Judge held that aggrieved person has got right to approach High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the event of issuance of notice on application on temporary injunction. Moreover in the case of Cantonment Board (supra) further safeguard has been provided commanding the subordinate Court to decide the application for temporary injunctions within three months in case no ex-parte injunction is granted. Moreover as discussed in the case of Cantonment Board (supra), this Court does not possess legislative power. The provisions to be interpreted without any addition or subtraction. Hon’ble single Judge of this Court, with profound respect, had not considered the other Division Bench judgments as well as other Apex Court judgments relied upon by this Court in the case of Cantonment Board (supra). 10. Not only the judgement of Shiv Shakti (supra) but in the judgement of Gayatri Devi (supra) and Surya Dev Rai (supra) their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that revision against the order passed by the trial Court which may not amount to “case decided” shall not be maintainable. 11. In the case of Surya Dev Rai (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the amendment done under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the State of U.P. while interpreting the maintainability of revision. Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that revision shall not be maintainable against interlocutory proceeding. 11. In the case of Surya Dev Rai (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the amendment done under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the State of U.P. while interpreting the maintainability of revision. Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that revision shall not be maintainable against interlocutory proceeding. Relevant portion from the judgment of Gayatri Devi (supra) is reproduced as under : “In the first place, it appears to us that the revision petitioner before the High Court was wholly incompetent in view of the amended provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision petition was entertained at the stage of interlocutory proceedings. As laid down by this Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers an order, interim in nature or which does not finally decide the lis cannot be challenged by way of a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 12. Hon’ble Single Judge in a case of Algu (supra) had only tried to distinguish the judgement of Shiv Shakti (supra) with finding that the provisions contained in Maharashtra is not same. Though, nowhere it has been pointed out as what is the provision operative in State of Maharashtra relating to revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is settled law that while interpreting the judgement its ratio should be seen. Provision of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the subsequent judgment of Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai (supra) and Gayatri Devi (supra) has not been considered by Hon’ble Single Judge while deciding the controversy in Algus case (supra). Provision of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the subsequent judgment of Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai (supra) and Gayatri Devi (supra) has not been considered by Hon’ble Single Judge while deciding the controversy in Algus case (supra). The other judgement relied upon by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Cantonment Board (supra) as well as interpretative finding relying upon Apex Court judgment [vide; AG v. HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, 1957 (1) All ER 49 (HL); 2002 (4) All ER 654, R v. National Asylum Support Service; AIR 1992 SC 1 , Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India; 1974 (1) SCC 596 , M/s Gammon India Ltd and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1978 SC 995 , M/s Punjab Beverages Ltd., Chandigarh v. Suresh Chand and another, para 5), AIR 2002 SC 829 , Kailash Chandra and another v. Mukundi Lal and others (para 10) and AIR 2000 SC 66 , Grasim Industries Ltd and another v. State of M.P.] have also not been considered in the case of Algu. At the face of record the case of Algoo seems to be per incuriam to various Apex Court judgment referred hereinabove. 13. Learned District Judge while exercising jurisdiction should have considered both the Judgement and ultimately primacy should have been given to law laid down by Apex Court in the event of conflict between two judgments of Coordinate Bench of this Court. 14. A plain reading of all the three judgments namely; Shiv Shakti (supra), Surya Dev Rai (supra) and Gayatri Devi show that revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil-Procedure shall not be maintainable at the stage of interlocutory proceeding. A close reading of provision contained in Maharashtra as well as in the State of U.P. at the face of record shows that order passed by the trial Court while issuing a notice on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be interlocutory order and it cannot be termed as case decided. Needless to say that provision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a procedural law and ipso facto the provision itself cannot be termed to be declaration that revision shall be maintainable even if case is not decided. 15. Needless to say that provision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a procedural law and ipso facto the provision itself cannot be termed to be declaration that revision shall be maintainable even if case is not decided. 15. Keeping in view the fact that while deciding the Algu’s case (supra), Hon’ble Single Judge had not considered the various judgments of Apex Court referred hereinabove, it can safely be held that judgment of Algu (supra) is per incuriam to Apex Court’s judgement and lacks binding effect. 16. Per incuriam means in ignorance of law laid down by the Apex Court or the statutory provisions vide; 2003 (5) SCC 448 , State of Bihar v. Kalika Singh and others; (1991) 4 SCC 139 , State of U.P and another v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and another; AIR 1975 SC 907 , Mamleshwar Prasad and others v. Kanhaiya Lal; (2005) 1 SCC 608 , Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar; 1999 (3) SCC 112 , Ram Gopal Baheti v. Giridharilal Soni and others, AIR 1988 SC 1531 , Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, 1999 (5) SCC 638 ; Sarnam Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others and 2004 (4) SCC 590 State v. Ratan Lal Arora. 17. In view of above, the impugned order dated 26.9.2005 passed by the opposite party No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 102 of 2005 as contained in Annexure-1 is hereby quashed and writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 18. Let copy of the present order be sent to Registrar General of this Court forthwith. Registrar General shall circulate the present order to the members of subordinate judiciary so that there may not be any confusion relating to the non-maintainability of revision against the issuance of notice on an application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a regular suit. ————