Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.— Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record. 2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 06.09.2012, by which the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.24, Lucknow has allowed the application for amendment, paper no.47-A in Regular Suit No.485 of 2008, vide order dated 06.09.2012. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the records. 4. Through application 47-A for amendment, the learned trial Court has allowed the application and directed the plaintiff-revisionist to implead third party, which is a necessary party to the suit. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred this revision. On the legal score, the revision is not maintainable in view of the amended proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others, reported in AIR 1966 SC, 153 has held as under:- ".............It is well-settled that a plea of limitation or a plea of res judicata is a plea of law which concerns the jurisdiction of the Court, which tries the proceedings. A finding on these pleas in favour of the party raising them would oust the jurisdiction of the Court, and so, an erroneous decision on these pleas can be said to be concerned with questions of jurisdiction which fall within the purview of Section 115 of the Code. But an erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the subordinate Court which has no relation to questions of jurisdiction of that Court, cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115." 6. In Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/s Swaraj Developers and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2434 , it was held:- "It is fairly a well settled position in law that the right of appeal is a substantive right. But there is no such substantive right in making an application under S. 115. Section 115 is essentially a source of power for the High Court to supervise the subordinate courts. It does not in any way confer a right on a litigant aggrieved by any order of the subordinate court to approach the High Court for relief. The scope for making a revision under S. 115 is not linked with a substantive right." 7. It does not in any way confer a right on a litigant aggrieved by any order of the subordinate court to approach the High Court for relief. The scope for making a revision under S. 115 is not linked with a substantive right." 7. On point of facts, a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886 , has held as under:- "As a result of these considerations, we have arrived at the following conclusions:- (1) That the question of addition of parties under r. 10 of O. I of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view. of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but in some cases, it may raise controversies as to the power of the court, in contra distinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in s. 115 of the Code; (2)That in a suit relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject matter of the litigation; (3)Where the subject-matter of a litigation is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy ; (4)The cases contemplated in the last proposition have to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions of ss. 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act ; (5)In cases covered by those statutory provisions the court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if the court has reasons to insist upon a clear proof apart from the admission; (6)The result of a declaratory decree on the question of status such as in controversy in the instant case affects not only the parties actually before the court but generations to come, and, in view of that consideration, the rule of I present interest' as evolved by case law relating to disputes about property does not apply with full force; and (7)The rule laid down in s. 43 of the Specific Relief Act is not exactly a rule of res judicata. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another." 8. On the basis of discussions as made above, revision is dismissed in limine. _____________