This civil revision under Sec tion 115 of CPC has been filed by the revi sionist against the order dated 15- 9-2008, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow in Original Suit No. 521 of 2008, whereby the court below has passed an order of issuing notice on the application for interim injunction filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. Revisionist filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from evicting the plaintiff/revisionist and his fam ily members from the house in question situ ated at Kanpur Road, Aashiyana, Lucknow. The revisionist also filed an application un der Order XXXIX, Rule 1 for the grant of interim injunction. The court below by the impugned order dated 15-9-2008 has ordered the issuance of notice on the interim injunc tion application. The revisionist feeling ag grieved by and dissatisfied with the im pugned order dated 15-9-2008 passed by the court below has filed this revision. 2. The opposite parties have filed a short counter affidavit raising preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present re vision. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite par ties has submitted that the order issuing notice on the interim injunction application is not a "case decided" within the meaning of Section 115 of CPC and the court has not committed any jurisdictional error so as to warrant any interference of this Court in the exercise of its power under Section 115 of CPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in Kadiyala Ramrao v. Gutala Ramrao (2000) (3) SCC 87 and decision of this Court in 1993 (1) LCD 595 and has contended that issuing of a notice come within the definition of "case decided" and the court below has committed illegality by not granting in junction but merely issuing a notice on the injunction application, ignoring the urgency involved in the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite par ties while referring to the provisions under Section 115 of C. P. C. and Order 39, Rulees 1 & 2 of CPC, has argued that neither the case has been decided by the court below nor the Order issuing notice has finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings nor the order has caused failure of justice or irreparable injury to the revisionist. 6. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted that sub-Section (1) of Section 115 of CPC empowers the court to acquire the revisional jurisdiction and sub-Section (3) of Section 115 of CPC provides the manner in which revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Any order passed on the interim injunction appli cation will not come within the meaning of "other proceedings" by a subordinate court as contemplated under Section 115 (1) of CPC. Issuing notices to the opposite parties is a step in aid to the exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate court. Before exercise of power under Section 115 of CPC it is incumbent upon the court to see whether the order against which the revision has been filed is a "case decided" and whether there is jurisdictional error committed by the court below and fur ther the impugned order which has been passed, if it had been made in favour of the parties applying for revision would have fi nally disposed of the suit or other proceed ings or the order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irrepa rable injury to the parties against whom it is made and has further submitted that issuing of a notice by the court below has simply postponed the decision on the interim appli cation to a future date and that stage has yet not arrived and the controversy raised is yet to be determined and adjudicated upon by the lower court. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite par ties has referred to the following decisions in support of his contention to demonstrate that the present revision under Section 115 of CPC against the mere issuance of notice is not maintainable:- (i) (2003) 6 SCC 659 : ( AIR 2003 SC 2434 ) Shiv Shakti Coop. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite par ties has referred to the following decisions in support of his contention to demonstrate that the present revision under Section 115 of CPC against the mere issuance of notice is not maintainable:- (i) (2003) 6 SCC 659 : ( AIR 2003 SC 2434 ) Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers & others, (ii) 2003 (3) AWC 1921 : (2003 All LJ 74) Debi Das v. State of U. P. and others, (iii) 2006 (4) ADJ 67 : (2006 (5) ALT (DOC) 25) (Alld) Narendra Kumar v. Nagar Nigam Bareilly and others, (iv) 2007 (3) ADJ 490 : (2007 (3) ALJ 45) Dinesh Singh v. Additional District Judge (Court No. 1) Gorakhpur and another, (v) AIR 2003 (All) 180 : (2003 All LJ 1505) Rajendra Singh & others v. Brij Mohan Agarwal & oth ers, (vi) 2007 (1) ADJ 48 : (2007 (1) ALJ 477) Ram Ishwar @ Rameshwar v. Laxmi Narain and another, (vii) 2007 (25) LCD 390 Lalit Mohan Srivastava and others v. District Judge Ambedkar Nagar & Ors. , (viii) (2003) 6 SCC 675 : (2003 All LJ 2057) Surya Dev Ram v. Ram Chandra Rai and others, (ix) (2005) 5 SCC 527 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2342 ) Gayatri Devi and others v. Shashi Pal Singh, (x) 2006 (62) ALR 278 : (2006 (1) All LJ 532) Rajpal Singh v. Richpal Singh and others, (xi)2006 (62) ALR 885 : (2006 (2) All LJ 790) Mohd. Rais Khan v. Naseeb Ullah Khan and others. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Honble Supreme Court in S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon AIR 1964 SC 497 had settled the law that the words "case" has got com prehensive import which includes civil proceedings other than suits and is not restricted by anything contained in the section to the entirety of the proceeding in a civil court. Accordingly any decision given by the com petent court at intermediary stage while dis posing an issue shall amount to case decided. There must be determination of an issue or a controversy or dispute or an application or grievance raised by a party during the course of a proceeding. Accordingly any decision given by the com petent court at intermediary stage while dis posing an issue shall amount to case decided. There must be determination of an issue or a controversy or dispute or an application or grievance raised by a party during the course of a proceeding. Unless grievance or claim made by a party is determined finally though it may not relate to final adjudication of the suit it cannot be said that a case has been de cided. Therefore to attract the provision con tained in sub-section (1) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is necessary that there should be final adjudication or deter mination of an application or issue pending before the subordinate court and such deter mination can be challenged on the ground enumerated under Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. According to Maxwell on the Interpre tation of Statutes (12th edition page 36) any construction which may leave without affect ing any part of the language of a statute should ordinarily be rejected. Keeping in view the above settled principle of interpretation while considering the Section 115 of CPC, sub-sec tions (1), (2), (3) and (4) should be read as a whole and not in isolation. 11. A perusal of Section 115 of CPC as available after Central Amendment Act, 1999 and U. P. State Amendment Act to Section 115 sub-section (1) is concerned it is com mon in both the situation. Therefore, while interpreting sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 115 the provision contained in sub section 1 of Section 115 cannot be side tracked. As discussed hereinabove while in terpreting the provision contained in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the entire section should be read as a whole and not merely sub-section 3 (1) and (ii) of Section 115 of CPC. Accordingly, the effect of sub section (1) of Section 115 of CPC cannot be diluted by provisions of Section 115 (3) sub-clause (ii) of CPC which has been retained by the U. P. State Amendment Act. 12. Accordingly, the effect of sub section (1) of Section 115 of CPC cannot be diluted by provisions of Section 115 (3) sub-clause (ii) of CPC which has been retained by the U. P. State Amendment Act. 12. It will also be useful to refer the judg ment of the Apex Court in Baldev Das Shiv lal and another AIR 1970 SC 406 wherein it has been held in paragraph 10 as follows:- "it may also be observed that by ordering that a question may properly be put to a wit ness who was being examined, no case was decided by the Trial Court. The expression "case" is not limited in its import to the en tirety of the matter in dispute in an action. This Court observed in Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dillon (1964) 4 SCR 409 ( AIR 1964 SC 497 ) that the expression "case" is a word of comprehensive import: it includes a civil proceeding and is not restricted by any thing contained in S. 115 of the Code to the entirety of the proceeding in a civil Court. To interpret the expression "case" as an entire proceeding only and not a part of the proceed ing imposes an unwarranted restriction on the exercise of powers of superintendence and may result in certain cases in denying relief to the aggrieved litigant where it is most needed and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice. But it was not decided in Major S. S. Khannas case, (supra) that every order of the Court in the course of a suit amounts to a case decided. A case may be said to be decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in con troversy; every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the mean ing of Section 115 of CPC. 13. The Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Co-op erative Housing Society, Nagpur, ( AIR 2003 SC 2434 ) (supra) has held in para 32 as follows:- "a plain reading of Section 115 as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the ques tion whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given fi nality to suit or other proceeding. If the an swer is "yes" then the revision is maintain able. If the an swer is "yes" then the revision is maintain able. But on the contrary, if the answer is "no" then the revision is not maintainable. There fore, if the impugned order is interim in na ture cannot be the subject -matter of revision under Section 115. " 14. The following conditions ought to be complied with before invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. Firstly the impugned order under challenge must be a "case decided" in an original suit or other proceedings by a subordinate court, secondly there should be a jurisdictional error as pro vided under Section 115 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of CPC. The sub-section (3) of Section 115 of CPC will come into play only when first two requirements namely "case decided" and "jurisdictional error" are satisfied. Sub sec tion (3) of Section 115 of CPC merely im poses additional statutory conditions for mak ing to the already existing conditions laid down under sub-section (1) of 115 of CPC. Unless and until preliminary conditions laid down under sub-section 115 (1) of CPC ("case decided" and "jurisdictional error") are not complied with, provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 115 of CPC will not operate and the revision shall liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of sub-section (1) of Section 115 of CPC alone. 15. This court in Cantonment Board, Lucknow and another v. District Judge (Incharge, Lucknow and others) has observed that the amendment made in sub-section (1) of. 115 cannot be read in a piecemeal but the entire section should be read as a whole. The U. P. amendment does not affect the condi tions prohibited by the sub-section (1) of Sec tion 115 of CPC. Under sub-section (3) of Section 115 of CPC, it has been provided that the superior court shall not interfere under this section, means under Section 115 of the CPC, to reverse or vary any order made by subor dinate court except in case order stands would have finally disposed of the suit or other pro ceeding or if it allowed to stand would occa sion a failure of justice or may cause irrepa rable injury to the party against whom it has been made. 16. 16. A combined reading of sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to decision where a controversy has been decided by the court while determining the issue or dispute in ques tion. 17. In Shiv Shakti case, ( AIR 2003 SC 2434 ) (supra) the Apex Court though was not dealing with the provisions of Section 115 of CPC as amended in U. P. but non-consider ation of the provisions of Section 115 (3) (ii) will not have any effect on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Shiv Shakti. The Apex Court in that case has clearly held that if the impugned order is interim in nature cannot be the subject matter of revision under Sec tion 115 of CPC and once when the order does not come within the meaning of Section 115 (1) of CPC, it would not qualify the condi tion laid down under Section 115 (1) of CPC. 18. As discussed hereinabove in the case of Shiv Shakti, ( AIR 2003 SC 2434 ) (supra), the Apex Court had not only interpreted Sec tion 115 of CPC by applying the settled rules of interpretation but in the same judgment under Para 32 had provided yardstick to de cide by observing that if the impugned order is interim in nature cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115 of CPC. The case of Shiv Shakti (supra) has been fol lowed by the Apex Court again in judgment of Gayatri Devi, ( AIR 2005 SC 2342 ) (su pra ). Apex Court had reaffirmed the principle laid down by Shiv Shakti (supra) and held that an order which is interim in nature or which does not finally decide the Us cannot be challenged by filing a revision under Sec tion 115 of CPC. For convenience, relevant portion from the judgment of Gayatri Devi (supra) is reproduced as under: "in the first place, it appears to us that the revision petition before the High Court was wholly incompetent in view of the amended provision of Section 115 of CPC. The revi sion petition was entertained at the stage of interlocutory proceedings. For convenience, relevant portion from the judgment of Gayatri Devi (supra) is reproduced as under: "in the first place, it appears to us that the revision petition before the High Court was wholly incompetent in view of the amended provision of Section 115 of CPC. The revi sion petition was entertained at the stage of interlocutory proceedings. As laid down by this Court in Shiv Shakti Co- operative Hous ing Society v. Swaraj Developers, and Order interim in nature or which was not finally challenged by way of a revision under Sec tion 115 of CPC. 19. This Court in Lalit Mohan Srivastava and others v. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar 2007 (25) LCD 390 while referring to the judgment in Algoo (supra) has held that "at the face of record the case of Algoo (supra) seems to be per incuriam to various Apex Court judgments" and has further held as fol lows:- "a plain reading of all the three judgments namely; Shiv Shakti, ( AIR 2003 SC 2434 ) (supra), Surya Dev Rai, (2003 All LJ 2057) (supra) and Gayatri Devi, ( AIR 2005 SC 2342 ) show that revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be maintainable at the stage of interlocutory pro ceeding. A close reading of provision con tained 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 no tice on an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC shall be interlocutory order and it cannot be termed as case decided. Need less to say that provision under Section 115 of CPC is a procedural law and ipso facto the provision itself cannot be termed to be decla ration that revision shall be maintainable even if case is not decided. " 20. Moreover, in view of Apex Court judg ment in the case of Gayatri Devi, ( AIR 2005 SC 2342 ) (supra) it is not necessary to consider other judgments. The case of Gayatri Devi (supra) puts the final seal on the issue and settled the law that merely issuance of notice by the trial court on an application filed by plaintiff shall not amount to case decided and revision shall not be maintainable. The case of Gayatri Devi (supra) puts the final seal on the issue and settled the law that merely issuance of notice by the trial court on an application filed by plaintiff shall not amount to case decided and revision shall not be maintainable. Law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti, ( AIR 2003 SC 2434 ) (supra) fol lowed by Gayatri Devi (supra) is binding un der Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 21. Not only the judgment of Shiv Shakti (supra) but in the judgment of Gayatri Devi (supra) and Surya Dev Rai, (2003 All LJ 2057) (supra) their Lordships of the Apex Court held that revision against the order passed by the trial court which may not amount to "case decided" shall not be main tainable. 22. In view of the above discussion, it is held that mere issuance of notice on an appli cation for interim injunction is not a "case decided" as required under Section 115 of CPC. 23. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the case of Kadaya (supra), it has no bearing on the case in hand. In that case the objections filed under Order XXIX, Rule 90 was rejected by the court be low filed by the judgment debtor for setting aside the auction was rejected by a speaking order against the same. The revision was filed before the High Court and Apex Court held that if the order is not appealable it would be within the ambit of Section 115 of the Court and revisional application would be maintain able. The aforesaid case was confined to its own fact and has no bearing on the case in hand. The other judgment of R. A. Pratindy Sabha v. Manmohan Tiwari 1993 (1) LCD 595 is not at all applicable in the present mat ter and in my opinion it is clearly distinguish able on facts. 24. For the reasons stated above, this revi sion is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable and the interim order dated 30-9-2008 granted by this Court is hereby vacated. Revision dimissed. .