T. Nandakumar Singh, J.:- Heard Mr. Kh. Chonjohn, learned coun­sel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kh. Rajeskumar, learned counsel for the respond­ents-plaintiffs. 2. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division No.1, Manipur East) amphelpat dated 12.8.2011 for a limited permission to the respondents-plaintiffs to file replication only to the para 3 and 4 of the written statement. 3. On perusal of the impugned order dated 12.8.2011, it is crystal clear that the whole replication consisting of 13 pages had not been accepted, but only the portions of the replication reply to the para Nos- 3 and 4 of the written statement had been accepted. Operative portion of the impugned order dated 12.8.2011 read as follows: "Considered both sides submissions along with the enclosed replication proposed to be filed which runs 13 pages and the relevant record with the documents thereon. And it ap­pears that the facts alleged by the defendants in their written statement at para No.3 and 4 needs to be controverted by the plaintiffs by way of giving their reply with reasons or clarifi­cation thereof. And for this, the whole of para No.3 and para No.4 but partly excluding a po­tion of paraNo.4, i.e. from the word 'and' after the words "Oinam Thingel" till the end of the sentence on page 3 of the proposed replication, are found to be necessary for determining the real dispute between the parties and that the same if allowed to be filed is not going to change the nature and character of the suit nor is it likely going to cause prejudice to the oppo­site party. However, the rest of the proposed replication are merely reply to every averments made in the written statement is not only re­dundant but also not acceptable for if, replica­tion in this form is allowed to be filed then there will be no end to pleadings. In view of the above reasons I am inclined to allow the replication only to that extend only as mentioned above in the interest of justice while rejecting the rest of the application. Hence, the replication is partly allowed and partly rejected." 4. In view of the above reasons I am inclined to allow the replication only to that extend only as mentioned above in the interest of justice while rejecting the rest of the application. Hence, the replication is partly allowed and partly rejected." 4. This Court can exercise power for re­vision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order passed by the Subordinate Court only when the subor­dinate Court: (a) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested it by law; or (b) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) has acted in the exercise of its ju­risdiction illegally or with material irregu­larity. 5. On perusal of the order dated 12.8.2011, it is crystal clear that the trial Court passed the impugned order within its juris­diction and also it appears that there is no material irregularity committed by the learned trial court in passing the impugned order dated 12.8.2011. 6. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is not interfering with the impugned or­der dated 12.8.2011. Accordingly, this revi­sion petition is dismissed.