( 1 ) IN the present case Revisionist filed suit No. 161 of 1994 (Tahseen Khan Vs. Idrish Khan and others) in the Court of Munsif Magistrate Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahar. Said suit has been dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree Civil Appeal No. 162 of 2002 (Tahseen Khan Vs. Idrish Khan and others) has been preferred. In the said pending appeal application under Order 41 Rule 27 has been moved and said application has been rejected on 01. 10. 2008. Against said order present Civil Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed. Question which has cropped up is in respect of maintainability of present Civil Revision against the order passed in Civil Appeal rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. Learned counsel for the Revisionist, Sri Ravindra Mishra relying on the judgment in the case of Sailo Ram and etc. Vs. Kuldip Chand and etc. reported in AIR 2003 Himachal Pradesh 148 wherein view has been taken that Revision is maintainable against the order passed in application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C. P. C for production of additional evidence in Appellate Court, contended that present Revision be entertained and requisite relief be accorded. ( 2 ) AT this juncture it would be relevant to refer the original text of Section 115 of CPC as stood present under the Central Act as well as after U. P. Amendment Act, 2003, which are being quoted below :-Central Amendment Act to Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure- "115. ( 2 ) AT this juncture it would be relevant to refer the original text of Section 115 of CPC as stood present under the Central Act as well as after U. P. Amendment Act, 2003, which are being quoted below :-Central Amendment Act to Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure- "115. Revision.- [ (1)] The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. (2) the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court. Explanation.-In this section, the expression any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings. " U. P. State Amendment to Section 115, CPC as incorporated in 2003"115. Explanation.-In this section, the expression any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings. " U. P. State Amendment to Section 115, CPC as incorporated in 2003"115. Revision.- [ (1)] A superior court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceedings by a subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order and where the subordinate court has:- (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or (c) acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, (2) A revision application under sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a certificate on the first page of such application, below the title of the case, to the effect that no revision in the case lies to the district court but lies only to the High Court either because of valuation or because the order sought to be revised was passed by the district court. (3) The superior court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where.- (i) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. (4) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the superior court. Explanation I.-In this section.- (i)the expression superior court means- (a)the district court, where the valuation of a case decided by a court subordinate to it does not exceed five lakh rupees; (b)the High Court, where the order sought to be revised was passed in a case decided by the district court or twhere the value of the original suit or other proceedings in a case decided by a court subordinate to the district court exceed five lakh rupees; (ii)the expression order includes an order deciding an issue in any original suit or other proceedings. Explanation II.-The provisions of this section shall also be applicable to orders passed, before or after the commencement of this section, in original suits or other proceedings instituted before such commencement. " ( 3 ) FULL Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and others reported in AIR 1979 Allahabad 218 has interpreted the phrases "case arising out of an original suit" and "in any other case" has concluded that both the phrases do not include a case arising out of the decision on an Appeal or Revision. The decision on an Appeal or Revision by a District Court was outside the purview of the revisional powers conferred by Section 115 C. P. C. ( 4 ) SAID Full Bench judgment has been approved by Honble Apex Court in the case of Vishesh Kumar Vs. Shanti Prasad reported in AIR 1980 SC 892 in paragraph 14 mentioning therein that Full Bench of Allahabad High Court has rightly laid down there that the phrase "case arising out of an original suit" occurring in Section 115 does not cover orders passed in Revision. Once Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and others reported in AIR 1979 Allahabad 218 has clearly taken the view that revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised qua the matter arising out of original suit and in other case same is not applicable including the case arising out of decision in Revision and said judgment has been affirmed in the case of Vishesh Kumar (Supra) then said legal position still holds the field and in cases arising out of Appeal or Revision, Civil Revision is not at all maintainable. Judgement which has been relied up on from the side of Revisionist is not at all in context of provision as it is inexistence in the State of U. P. as is apparent from the text of the provisions of Section 115 C. P. C as applicable and quoted in the judgment in the State of Himanchal Pradesh and text of the provision as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Judgment of Honble Apex Court in the case of Vishesh Kumar (Supra) which is directly on the point has not at all been taken into account in the aforesaid judgment and Full Bench judgment of this Court is binding and as such as far as present Civil Revision is concerned same is held to be not competent and maintainable. Consequently present Civil Revision is not maintainable and same is accordingly dismissed. .