Judgment : The matter is put up before this Court on the request of the counsel for the petitioners in view of the objection raised by the Registry regarding the maintainability of this Revision Petition against the order, appointing a Receiver, passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court in C.M. Appeal, in view of the decision of this Court in Thilakan v. Kunhalankutty (2004 (1) KLT 235). 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. S. 115(1) C.P.C. enables the High court to 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." Explanation to S. 115 C.P.C. states that in the said section the expression "any case which has been decided" includes inter alia any order made in the course of a suit. Proviso to S.115(1) C.P.C. states, however, that the High Court shall not, under S. 115 C.P.C., vary or reverse, inter alia, any order made in the course of a suit, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit. In the instant case, the interim application was for appointment of a Receiver and is an interlocutory order passed in the course of a suit. For more reasons than one, a revision will not be maintainable before this Court: (1) for the reason that even in the event of the impugned order having been decided in favour of the petitioner, it would not have finally disposed of the suit and (2) the order on an application for appointment of a Receiver, whether it is allowing the application or dismissing the application, which is made in the course of a suit, passed under O.XL R.1 C.P.C. is made an appealable order under O.XLIII R.1(s) C.P.C.. For the above two reasons, a revision is not maintainable under S.115 of the C.P.C. against the order appointing a Receiver and the judgment in C.M. Appeal also is, therefore, not subject to revision. The objection raised by the Registry is upheld.