JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 03.12.2012 passed in I.A.No.403 of 2012 in Tr.O.P.No.481 of 2012 by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: I.A.No.403 of 2012 was filed by the first respondent seeking the following relief: "Therefore, for all the reasons stated above it is just and necessary that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings in O.S.No.233 of 2012 pending on the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin, till the disposal of the original petition and thus render justice." (Extracted as such) And got the relief of stay. This Civil Revision Petition is focussed expressing his grievance as against the granting of exparte stay order, staying all further proceedings in O.S.No.233 of 2012 pending on the file of Sub Court, Thoothukudi. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The revision petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.233 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Thoothukudi, seeking the following relief: "(a) A permanent injunction restraining the First Defendant from permitting the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Defendants, who are all illegally continuing against the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Articles of Association, from functioning as Directors of TMBL." (Extracted as such) And the same plaintiff filed I.A.No.991 of 2012 seeking the following relief: "20. Hence it is therefore just and necessary that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit restraining the First defendant from permitting the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Defendants from functioning as Directors of TMBL will the 88th Annual General Meeting of the bank is held and be pleased to grant an order of ad-interim injunction to the same effect till the disposal of this application and thus render justice." (Extracted as such) And in that application, an exparte injunction was granted, as against which the respondents therein preferred a revision earlier before this Court, but the said revision was dismissed with the observation that only a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would lie. Whereupon, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner herein, a Special Leave Petition was filed by the revision petitioners therein, but that Special Leave Petition is pending and no stay has been granted by the Honourable Apex Court. (ii) While so, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner herein, holus-bolus the first respondent herein/Bank filed the T.R.O.P.No.481 of 2012 seeking transfer of the suit in O.S.No.233 of 2012 from the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi, to the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, wherein the subsequently instituted suits in C.O.S.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 filed by two other Directors, are pending. (iii) The fact remains that earlier one T.R.O.P., was filed by some of the defendants in O.S.No.233 of 2012 before the High Court for transferring the said suit in O.S.No.233 of2012 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi, to some other Court and it was dismissed. While so, the learned District Judge, on the filing of the subsequent T.R.O.P.No.481 of 2012 by the Bank, immediately passed the exparte injunction order in I.A.No.403 of 2012 without even ordering notice to the revision petitioner herein and that too, when the said O.S.No.233 of 2012 was at the embryonic stage only. As such, the order of stay is incapacitating the revision petitioner who happened to be the plaintiff in O.S.No.233 of 2012 from prosecuting his suit and other proceedings before the Sub Court, Thoothukudi, warranting interference in revision. 5. As such, the order of stay is incapacitating the revision petitioner who happened to be the plaintiff in O.S.No.233 of 2012 from prosecuting his suit and other proceedings before the Sub Court, Thoothukudi, warranting interference in revision. 5. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the respective learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 3, 4 and 8, in unison, would pilot their arguments thus: Instead of filing the counter affidavit in I.A.No.403 of 2012 in T.R.O.P.No.481 of 2012, they simply approached this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is not contemplated. The fundamental principle is that the very Court which granted the exparte order should be approached for getting it vacated instead they did choose to file this Civil Revision Petition. T.R.O.P.No.481 of 2012 filed before the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, was for the purpose of getting the suit pending on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi, transferred to the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and also emerging of conflicting judgments. The Sub Court, Thoothukudi, was also having no jurisdiction to deal with the Company Law matters and only the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, has got jurisdiction. Accordingly, they would pray for the dismissal of this Civil Revision Petition. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is entertainable as against the interim stay granted for a limited period? The Point: 7. At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate my mind with the decision of this Court in Durairajand others v. Venugopal and another reported in 2012-3-L.W. 807. Certain excerpts from it, would run thus: "12. I would like to refer to sub section (2) of Section 115 of CPC, which would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that if appeal lies in respect of a matter, then no revision could be entertained under Section 115 of CPC. 13. Certain excerpts from it, would run thus: "12. I would like to refer to sub section (2) of Section 115 of CPC, which would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that if appeal lies in respect of a matter, then no revision could be entertained under Section 115 of CPC. 13. The warp and woof of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is to the effect that as against the order passed in the CMA, inasmuch as no further appeal is contemplated, the only remedy could be the one under Section 115 of CPC. I cannot countenance such a view for the reason, that had the legislators thought that that should be the legal position as canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the legislators would have spelt out thus: "the revision under this Section [S.115 of CPC] shall not lie without exhausting the appeal remedy, if any," but that is not the legislative language and that was not the intention of the legislators as well. In Surya Devi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court glaringly and pellucidly shed light on the point that no revision under Section 115 of CPC would lie as against the order in Appeal. The legislators in their wisdom thought that in respect of certain matters appeal remedy if provided under law, then the parties concerned should get themselves satisfied with that remedy and once again, they cannot carve out their own dubious way of approaching the High Court under Section 115 of CPC. The mischief sought to be suppressed by the amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is axiomatic and obvious and if the view of the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is accepted, it would amount to opening the flood gate throwing to winds the spirit and essence of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff also inviting the attention of this Court to the proviso appended to sub Section (1) of Section 115 of CPC, would try to buttress and fortify his view, but an analysis of the said proviso would reveal and demonstrate that it is against his case. To maintain a revision under the said proviso, hypothetically the impugned interim order should be visualized thus: Gramatically "unreal past" situation in the said proviso is contemplated. To maintain a revision under the said proviso, hypothetically the impugned interim order should be visualized thus: Gramatically "unreal past" situation in the said proviso is contemplated. If such order had been passed in his favour, whether it would have the effect of finally disposing of the suit or the proceedings before the lower court. Here, it is crystal clear that if the said order had been passed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure by allowing the interlocutory application, the main suit itself would have got revived and the proceedings in the main suit would be in progress. The same position would be if the CMA had been allowed. Hence the said proviso cannot be pressed into service by the respondent/plaintiff in support of his proposition that only a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would lie. 15. Needless to point out, that before 1976 amendment of CPC the position was different and the objects and reasons relating to amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is worthy of being reproduced here under: [Report of the Joint Committee-Gazette of India, Ext., dt.1-4-1976, Pt.II, S.2, p.804/10-11] "Amendments: Objects and Reasons.- Clause 43 (Original clause 45).- By clause 45 of the Bill, section 115 of the Code was proposed to be omitted. The question whether it is at all necessary to retain section 115 was carefully considered by the Committee. The Law Commission has expressed the view that, in view of article 227 of the Constitution, section 115 of the Code is no longer necessary. The Committee, however, feel that the remedy provided by article 227 of the Constitution is likely to cause more delay and involve more expenditure. The remedy provided in section 115 is on the other hand, cheap and easy. The Committee, therefore, feel that section 115, which serves a useful purpose, need not be altogether omitted particularly on the ground that an alternative remedy is available under article 227 of the Constitution. The Committee feel that the expression "case decided" should be defined so that the doubt as to whether section 115 applies to an interlocutory order may be set at rest. Accordingly, the Committee have added a proviso and an Explanation to section 115. The Committee feel that the expression "case decided" should be defined so that the doubt as to whether section 115 applies to an interlocutory order may be set at rest. Accordingly, the Committee have added a proviso and an Explanation to section 115. [Statement of Objects and Reasons (Bill 1999).] Amendments: Objects and Reasons.-Clause 12.-Section 115 of the Code provides for revision by the High Court or an order or decision of any Court subordinate to such High Court. The Malimath Committee noticed that often the records of the lower Courts are sent to the High Court in the revisional proceedings. It is imperative that records of proceedings pending in the subordinate Court should not be sent unless High Court so desires and revision should not operate as stay of proceedings before the trial Court. The Committee while agreeing in principle that scope of interference against interlocutory orders should be restricted, felt that the object can be achieved more effectively without demanding the High Court of the power of revision. Clause 12 seeks to achieve the above object by suitable amendments to section 115. 16. Wherefore, if the view of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is accepted, it would amount to rendering the very restrictive scope found embedded in Section 115 of CPC nugatory and otiose. As such, I am of the considered view that once appeal remedy is contemplated in respect of an order and the appeal remedy itself has been exhausted, then the question of invoking Section 115 of CPC would be a well-neigh impossibility. * * * * * 20. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that when appeal remedy is contemplated, revision under Section 115 of CPC would not lie. Then the core question arises as to what would happen to a litigant who is really having some grievance if there is any gross perversity in the impugned order. At this juncture, I recollect certain excerpts from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2005 (6) SCC 344 [Salem Advocate Bar Assn., T.N. v. Union of India]; certain excerpts from it would run thus: "40. Section 115 of the Code vests power of revision in the High Court over courts subordinate to it. At this juncture, I recollect certain excerpts from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2005 (6) SCC 344 [Salem Advocate Bar Assn., T.N. v. Union of India]; certain excerpts from it would run thus: "40. Section 115 of the Code vests power of revision in the High Court over courts subordinate to it. Proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code before the amendment by Act 46 of 1999 read as under: "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 proceeding, except where" (a) 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 (b) The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made." (Emphasis supplied) Now, the aforesaid proviso has been substituted by the following proviso: "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 proceeding, 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." The aforesaid clause (b) stands omitted. The question is about the constitutional powers of the High Courts under Article 227 on account of omission made in Section 115 of the Code. The question stands settled by a decision of this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai holding that the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is always in addition to the revisional jurisdiction conferred on it. Curtailment of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code does not take away and could not have taken away the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Curtailment of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code does not take away and could not have taken away the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The power exists, untrammelled by the amendment in Section 115 and is available to be exercised subject to rules of self-discipline and practice which are as well settled." As such in certain circumstances, if at all the party concerned could make out a case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, then he could petition the High Court invoking the said provision of law." 8. As a general principle, as against the exparte interim stay granted for a limited period, the respondent therein concerned is not expected to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India instead of filing a counter affidavit and getting the stay vacated or getting that petition itself dismissed. 9. In this case, admittedly, the counter affidavit was not filed in the I.A., for stay. 10. As such, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is expected to file the counter affidavit and pray for the dismissal of the I.A., itself; whereupon the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, is expected to take the I.A.No.403 of 2012 immediately and dispose of the same within a period of two weeks thereafter. I am constrained to pass such a direction because of the serious allegations made by the parties as against each other regarding the conduct of the case before the Principal District Court as well as before the Sub Court. Hence, on priority basis, I.A.No.403 of 2012 in T.R.O.P.No.481 of 2012 shall be taken up for disposal. A week's time is granted from this date to the revision petitioner herein/first respondent therein, for filing the counter affidavit in I.A.No.403 of 2012 in T.R.O.P.No.481 of 2012. The point is answered accordingly. 11. On balance, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.