RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard Sri S. N Singh, learned Counsel for the peti tioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ certiorari quashing the orders dated 11. 1. 1988 by which the Munsif Allahabad to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order dated 9. 7. 1991 and 18. 11. 19091 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 200 of 1991. 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed suit No. 244 of 1987 for specific performance of contract of sale on the basis of an agreement for sale dated 24. 1. 1984 said to have been executed by Smt. Ramkali widow of Shital Singh, during the pendency of O. S. No. 817 of 1983 between the petitioner Jagannath Singh and Ram Kali for permanent injunction in the Court of the Munsif West, Allahabad which was decided in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a compromise on 18. 2. 1984. 4. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that from the copy of the complaint appended as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition it is crystal clear that the suit is mainly against the petitioner (defendant No. 3 in the suit) the petitioner and rest of the defendants are merely proforma defendants. He stated that they have not been impleaded in the revision as well as in the writ petition for this reason. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner in this petition and defendant No. 3 in suit had filed his written statement on 8. 7. 1987 on very first date as paper No. 12 therein. Thereafter on 4. 1. 1988 the following orders was passed in the suit:- "p. O. has gone to Lucknow for official work. Fresh steps for opposite party Nos. 2, 4 to 6 bothways within seven days. Fix 4. 1. 1988 for W. S. and 11. 1. 1988 for issues. " It appears from the copy of order-sheet appended as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition that on the next date 11. 1. 1988 application No. 15-C filed by the plaintiffs and the following orders was passed on that date :- "case called out. None appears for the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiff is present. 1. 1988 for issues. " It appears from the copy of order-sheet appended as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition that on the next date 11. 1. 1988 application No. 15-C filed by the plaintiffs and the following orders was passed on that date :- "case called out. None appears for the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiff is present. 15-C application filed by plaintiff for delaying the service sufficient on defendant Nos. 2, 5, 4, 8 and 6. Seen the report paper No. 14-C. From the perusal of this paper appears that service on the de fendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6 is sufficient and service on defendant Nos. 2 and 4 is not sufficient. So 15-C is allowed accordingly. Issue fresh summons to the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 fixing 23. 3. 88 for W. S. and 30. 3. 88 for issues. Today no W. S. has been filed by defendant Nos. 3, 5 and 6, so suit to proceed ex parte against defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6. Steps bothways within seven days. " 6. It is averred in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that unfortunately the petitioner was ill on that date. But further when the other defendants were not served, he thought no issue could be framed, hence he did not come to the Court on that date. A Medical Certificate in this writ petition is filed in proof as An nexure No. 5 in support of his contention before this Court. 7. It appears from record that the proceedings were transferred to the Court of IIIrd Additional Munsif Allahabad, who passed an order to the effect that "parties are present. Office is directed to inform the Counsel of the parties fixing 17. 1. 89 for issues. " 8. Thereafter in paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 it is averred that the parties including the petitioner (defendant No. 3) in the suit was pre sent in the Court and issues were framed and decided. The case was, therefore, listed for final hearing. The averments made in aforesaid paragraphs being relevant for the purposes of this case are being quoted as follows :- "8. On 17. 1. The case was, therefore, listed for final hearing. The averments made in aforesaid paragraphs being relevant for the purposes of this case are being quoted as follows :- "8. On 17. 1. 89 the Court showing presence of the parties on the plaint and only written statement of the petitioner defendant No. 3 in the suit framed issues in presence of plaintiffs and Counsel for the petitioner defen dant No. 3 in the suit and fixed 13. 2. 89 for disposal of issue No. 5 which was framed on the basis of issue raised by the petitioner alone. 9. The said issue was decided by the Court on hearing the plaintiffs Counsel and Counsel of the petitioner as defendant No. 3 on 5. 4. 89 holding the suit behind his jurisdiction and directing the office to arrange its trans fer to a Munsif having pecuniary jurisdiction. 10. Thereafter it was transferred to the Court of the III Addl. Munsif, Allahabad from the Court of the XII Addl. Munsif, Allahabad. 11. On 7. 10. 89 order-sheet shows that parties are present with the Counsel for the defendant No. 3 alone as per signature of the petitioner S. K. Misra in brief. 12. On 18. 10. 89 on non-pressing of issue by the Counsel for the petitioner defendant No. 3 the issue No. 5 was decided in negative and papers of the petitioner were admitted and 28. 10. 89 was fixed for disposal of issue No. 3. 13. On 17. 11. 89 on the argument of the Counsel for the petitioner defen dant No. 3 the issue was heard and decided against the petitioner as de fendant No. 3 and date for final hearing in the suit was fixed for 30. 11. 1989. 14. On 30. 11. 1989 the suit was again transferred to another Court where too date for final hearing was fixed for 31. 3. 1990 as between plain tiffs and petitioner defendant No. 3 alone. " 9. Thereafter the plaintiffs Counsel moved paper No. 38-C application on 13. 7. 1990 that defendant Nos. 2 and 4 are not served, hence summons were or dered to be issued to them fixing 28. 8. 1990 for W. S. and 17. 9. 1990 for additional issue if any. It may be noted here that the application was not moved by the Counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 3 in the suit. 10. 7. 1990 that defendant Nos. 2 and 4 are not served, hence summons were or dered to be issued to them fixing 28. 8. 1990 for W. S. and 17. 9. 1990 for additional issue if any. It may be noted here that the application was not moved by the Counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 3 in the suit. 10. Thereafter on 9. 7. 1991 the plaintiff-Counsel pointed out that on 11. 1. 88 orders for proceeding ex parte has been passed against defendant No. 3-peti-tioner, inspite of his written statement having been filed on the very first date in the suit after service of summons. The plaintiff Counsel, therefore moved an application for correction of the order, which was decided by order dated 9. 7. 1991 by the munsif inter alia that ex parte order was justified as even if written statement of defendant No. 3 was on record, the date 11. 1. 1988 was fixed for issues on basis of pleadings of the plaintiff and respondent No. 3, hence there is no illegality in the order to proceed ex parte on that date. The application of the plaintiff was accordingly rejected. 11. In the aforesaid back drop the petitioner filed revision No. 200 of 1991; Jagannath v. Raj Bahadur Dubey and others before the District Judge, Allahabad, who his vide order dated 18. 11. 1991 dismissed the revision holding that no injury had been caused to the revisionist in the facts of the case. The order dated 18. 11. 1991 is as under.- "the record shows that the present revisionist moved an application 39-C for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 11. 1. 1988 passed against him. This application was rejected on 9. 7. 1991. He again moved an appli cation on 16. 9. 1990 40-C for setting aside the order dated 11. 1. 1988. This application was rejected on 16. 9. 1991. He filed a revision against that order which was registered as Civil Revision No. 176/91 which was dis missed on 11. 10. 1991. On 21. 10. 1991 defendant No. 3 filed the present revi sion and have perused the record. I have heard the Counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record. The order in question cannot be said to without jurisdiction. 10. 1991. On 21. 10. 1991 defendant No. 3 filed the present revi sion and have perused the record. I have heard the Counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record. The order in question cannot be said to without jurisdiction. It may be right or may be wrong, may be in accordance with law or may not be in ac cordance with law but one thing is clear that the Trial Court had jurisdic tion to make the order is question. It also did not exercise its jurisdiction ei ther illegally or with material irregularity (Managing Director Hindustan, Aeronatic Limited v. Ajeet Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 76 . An erroneous decision on a question of law having no relation to question of jurisdiction will not be corrected under section 115 C. P. C. Section 115 C. P. C. applies to cases involving the question of jurisdic tion, i. e. , questions regarding the irregular exercise or non-exercise of juris diction or illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a Court and is not directed against the conclusion of law or fact in which questions of jurisdiction are not involved. In the instant case no question of jurisdiction is involved. The Trial Court had jurisdiction either to grant the application or to reject it. Since no jurisdictional question is involved, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere under section 115 C. P. C. Moreover section 115 C. P. C. has been amended by the State of U. P. Under the amended section this Court shall not very or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceed ings except where:- (1) the order if so varied reversed would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings, or (2) order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. If the order in question is varied or reversed it would not finally dispose of the suit or if allowed to stand would not occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the revisionists because if the suit is ulti mately decided against him he would have a right of appeal in which he can agitate the order in question rejecting his application for setting aside the ex parte order. In view of the above the revision is dismissed summarily. " 12. From perusal of paragraph Nos. 8 to 15 it is apparent that the peti tioner was allowed to participate in the case and orders had been passed upon hearing him also. He was not restrained from appearing in the proceedings on any date by the Court below. 13. The order dated 11. 1. 88 was passed when only issues were framed on basis of pleadings. This position is also admitted in paragraph 20 of the writ petition wherein it has been averred that from the proceedings of the suit, it is crystal clear that when after the order passed to proceed ex parte, the petitioner participated in suit on all subsequent dates. The issues were framed on his W. S. alone which were heard and decided after hearing him and it was only thereafter that dates for final hearing were fixed in his presence and or der dated 11. 1. 88 to proceed ex parte against him impliedly stood set aside. The Court of Munsif as well as District Judge, are legally and judicially bound to exercise their jurisdiction to set aside the order and if it is allowed, the defendant No. 3 i. e. petitioner may be deprived of participation in final hearing. 14. It is crystal clear from the aforesaid averments that even after order dated 11. 1. 1988, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and issues were decided in his presence after hearing him. The date of final hearing has also been fixed in his knowledge. This writ petition has been filed only on ap prehension that the petitioner may be deprived from participation in the final hearing. In view of this and the averments made in paragraph Nos. 5 to 15 and 20 of the writ petition there appears to be no reasonable basis for this appre hension and even otherwise a writ petition merely on apprehension is not main tainable unless there are concrete foundation for such an apprehension which may be discernable from record. In view of this and the averments made in paragraph Nos. 5 to 15 and 20 of the writ petition there appears to be no reasonable basis for this appre hension and even otherwise a writ petition merely on apprehension is not main tainable unless there are concrete foundation for such an apprehension which may be discernable from record. However, in the present case the apprehension of the petitioner is totally against the record for the reason that Court below had not deprived him from participation in the proceedings in the suit or from hearing including hearing upon issues which had been framed on basis of pleadings in his W. S. and he has continued to participate throughout the case. 15. It appears that at the time of hearing, an interim order was passed on 24. 1. 1992 to the effect that "such proceeding in suit No. 244/1987, which is pending in ACJM XII, Allahabad shall remain stayed. " It is evident from the averments made in the writ petition and the record/annexures appended with it that suit aforesaid is listed for final hearing. The petitioner has nowhere stated that he has been deprived of from hearing or participation at any stage in the suit. There is also no order by the Court declining to hear the petitioner in the final hearing hence there is no basis for such apprehension. 16. The suit was lastly fixed for final hearing on 30. 7. 1990. In the backdrop there appears to be no illegality in the order passed by the District Judge, who vide his impugned order 18. 11. 1991 has dismissed the revision filed by the pe titioner holding that no injury likely to be caused. It may also be noted at this stage that it was the application of the plaintiff dated 9. 7. 1991 for correction of the order, which was dismissed and it gives no cause of action to the peti tioner, who was heard and has participated throughout in the proceedings. 17. It may also be noted at this stage that it was the application of the plaintiff dated 9. 7. 1991 for correction of the order, which was dismissed and it gives no cause of action to the peti tioner, who was heard and has participated throughout in the proceedings. 17. For all the reason stated above and in view of the own admission of the petitioner that he has been allowed to participate in the proceedings by the Courts below in the suit, this writ petition having been filed on the basis of surmises, conjecture and baseless apprehension and has remained pending for last atleast 18 years when interim order has been obtained by the petitioner at final hearing stage of the suit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dis missed. Petition Dismissed. .