( 1 ) PRESENT Civil Revision has been filed mentioning therein that revisionist Ram Narain Chaurasia and respondent No. 1 to 9 are members of joint undivided Hindu family and further entire property has been purchased for joint business at three places. Rama Shanker Chaurasia died on 15. 06. 2002. Ram Narain Chaurasia filed Original Suit No. 863 of 2005 against respondent no. 1 to 5 for cancellation of will deed dated 07. 02. 2005 and permanent injunction. It has been stated that thereafter trial court passed order not to sale any of the properties. Revisionist submits that in spite of injunction order was there House No. 46/53 has been sought to be sold by entering in agreement of sale and Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lac) has been received as earnest money. Thereafter an application was moved under Order 39 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure for issuing direction that amount in question which has been received same be kept in some Nationalized Bank. Said application was objected to by filing objection on 15. 07. 2008. Against the said order in question present Civil Revision has been filed. ( 2 ) FIRST question to be adverted to is as to whether present Civil Revision filed under Section 115 of C. P. C. is maintainable or not ? 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. 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. " ( 3 ) 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. " ( 3 ) 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. " ( 4 ) THIS Court recently in the case of M/s Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U. P. reported in 2008 (10)ADJ 547 considered the question as to when an order passed on application will amount to case decided within the meaning of Section 115 C. P. C. Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment in paragraphs 39 to 48 is being reproduced. "39. Honble Supreme Court in S. S. Khanna Vs. F. J. Dillon AIR 1964 SC 497 had settled the law that the words "case" has got comprehensive 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 competent court at intermediary stage while disposing 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 installed by a party is determined finally though it may not relate to final adjudication of the suit it can not be said that a case has been decided. Therefore to attract the provision contained in sub-section (1) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is necessary that there should be final adjudication or determination of an application or issue pending before the subordinate court and such determination 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. 40. 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 common in both the situation. Therefore, while interpreting sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section115 the provision contained in sub-section 1 of Section 115 cannot be side tracked. As discussed hereinabove while interpreting 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. As discussed hereinabove while interpreting 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 Section115 of CPC can not be diluted by provisions of Section 115 (3) sub clause (ii) of CPC which has been retained by the U. P. State Amendment Act. 41. It will also be useful to refer the judgment 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 witness who was being examined, no case was decided by the Trial Court. The expression "case" is not limited in its import to the entirety 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 anything 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 proceeding 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 controversy ; every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of CPC. 42. 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 controversy ; every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of CPC. 42. The Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur (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 question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is "yes" then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is "no" then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is interim in nature cannot be the subject -matter of revision under Section 115. " 43. 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 provided 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 section 3 of Section 115 of CPC merely imposes additional statutory conditions for making to the already existing condition laid down under Section 1 of 115 of CPC. Unless and until preliminary conditions laid down under 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. 44. This court in Cantonment Board, Lucknow and another Vs. District Judge (Incharge, Lucknow and others) has observed that the amendment made in sub section of 115 can not be read in a piecemeal but the entire section should be read as a whole. The U. P. amendment does not affect the conditions prohibited by the sub section 1 of Section 115 of CPC. District Judge (Incharge, Lucknow and others) has observed that the amendment made in sub section of 115 can not be read in a piecemeal but the entire section should be read as a whole. The U. P. amendment does not affect the conditions prohibited by the sub section 1 of Section 115 of CPC. Under Sub section 3 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 subordinate court except in case order stands would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding or if it allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or may cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it has been made. 45. It has been further observed in the case of Cantonment Board, Lucknow (supra) that using the words "under this section" in sub-section with all clarity Legislatures had provided that revisional right may be available to an aggrieved party under Clause (I) or Clause (II) of sub-section (3) shall be subject to sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (3) adds additional ground for interference under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure (incorporated by State amendment) to the already existing ground provided by sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (3) cannot be read in isolation. 46. A combined reading of sub-section (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Section115 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 question. 47. In Shiv Shakti case (supra) the Apex Court though was not dealing with the provisions of 115 of CPC as amended in U. P. but not-consideration 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. 47. In Shiv Shakti case (supra) the Apex Court though was not dealing with the provisions of 115 of CPC as amended in U. P. but not-consideration 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 the if the impugned order is interim in nature cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 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 condition laid down under Section 115 (1) of CPC and as such the amended provision 115 in U. P. will not have any effect and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Shiv Shakti (supra) will apply with full force in the present matter. 48. As discussed hereinabove in the case of Shiv Shakti (supra), the Apex Court had not only interpreted Section115 of CPC by applying the settled rules of interpretation but in the same judgment under Para 32 had provided yardstick to decide 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 followed by the Apex court again in judgment of Gayatri Devi (supra ). Apex Court had reaffirmed the principle laid down by Shiv Shakti (supra) and held that an order wich is interim in nature or which does not finally decide the lis cannot be challenged by filing a revision under Section 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 revision petition was entertained at the stage of interlocutory proceedings. As laid down by this Court in Shiv Shakti CO-operative Housing Society Vs. Swaraj Developers, and Order interim in nature or which does not finally challenged by way of a revision under Section 115 of CPC. The revision petition was entertained at the stage of interlocutory proceedings. As laid down by this Court in Shiv Shakti CO-operative Housing Society Vs. Swaraj Developers, and Order interim in nature or which does not finally challenged by way of a revision under Section 115 of CPC. ( 5 ) IN the present case on the parameter set out, the facts of the present case are being adverted to as to whether present case falls within the aforesaid category or not. Order 39 of Code of Civil Procedure deals with temporary injunctions and interlocutory Orders under the heading of interlocutory orders. Rules 6 and 7 finds place wherein Court before whom proceedings are pending has been vested with the authority to pass interlocutory order in respect of interim sale and in respect of detention, preservation or inspection of any property which is the subject matter of such suit. Once proceedings in question itself are interlocutory in nature then by no stretch of imagination it can be said that order passed on such application amounts to case decided. Once order passed under Order 39 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure are of interlocutory nature then by no stretch of imagination it could amount to case decided and as such present Civil Revision is not maintainable. Consequently present Civil Revision is dismissed. .