JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. – By means of the instant revision filed under Section 115 C.P.C., the revisionists have challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur in Regular Suit No.533 of 2007 and the judgment and order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.11, District Sitapur in Civil Appeal No.59 of 2008, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur partly decreed the suit and partly dismissed the same while the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the opposite party No.3 filed a suit for declaration with the allegations that his father is defendant No.1 in the original suit while his mother had died on 24.07.2003. The first wife of the defendant No.1, namely Smt. Ranno Devi died in the year 1958 and Smt. Shishubala lived with the defendant No.1 as his wife till her death. The plaintiff respondent No.3 is the only legal heir left by her mother but the defendant No.2 is not accepting him as the legal heir of Smt. Shishubala. In these circumstances, it has become necessary to seek declaration decree to the effect that he is the only legal heir left by late Smt. Shishubala. 3. The revisionists defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement admitting the death of Smt. Shishubala on 24.07.2003 and also admitting that first wife of the defendant No.1 died in the year 1958. It was also stated that Smt. Shishubala had also left a married daughter, namely, Urmila Devi. In these circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent No.3 is not the only heir left by Smt. Shishubala. 4. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed two issues. The first issue was framed as to whether the plaintiff-respondent No.3 is the only legal heir of the defendant No.1 and Smt. Shishubala and the second issue was framed with regard to the relief claimed by the plaintiff-respondent No.3. The learned trial court on the basis of the evidence of the parties, partly decreed the suit and passed a decree of declaration to the affect that the plaintiff-respondent No.3 is the son of defendant No.1 Hari Shankar Shukla and his second wife Smt. Shishubala. The learned trial court on the basis of the evidence of the parties, partly decreed the suit and passed a decree of declaration to the affect that the plaintiff-respondent No.3 is the son of defendant No.1 Hari Shankar Shukla and his second wife Smt. Shishubala. However with regard to the declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent No.3 is the only legal heir of late Smt. Shishubala, the suit was dismissed. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiff-respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Sitapur being Regular Civil Appeal No.59 of 2008. The learned District Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.05.2008 allowed the appeal and while modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, passed a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent No.3 is the son of defendant No.1 from his second wife and is also the legal heir of legacy of his mother Smt. Shishubala along with his father defendant No.1. Against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the revisionists have filed this civil revision. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the plaintiff-respondent No.3 filed a suit for declaration without impleading the revisionists as defendants while they were necessary and proper parties to the suit. Learned first appellate Court did not consider the material on record and ignored the evidence that one Smt. Urmila Devi was also daughter of late Smt. Shishubala. Thus, the learned first appellate Court has committed material irregularity and has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties-respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the revision under Section 115 CPC against the impugned judgment and decree is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 115 CPC. He has placed the amended provision with regard to filing of revision under Section 115 CPC in which it is provided that 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. He has placed the amended provision with regard to filing of revision under Section 115 CPC in which it is provided that 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. The submission on behalf of the opposite parties is that against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the appeal under Section 96 CPC could be filed and an appeal was actually filed before the first appellate Court. The first appeal being an independent proceedings is not a case decided in an original suit. The revisionists were admittedly not parties in the proceedings before the trial court as well as before the first appellate Court and, therefore, the proper course for them was to either filed a second appeal or challenge the decree by way of filing a separate suit. The revision against the decree passed by the first appellate Court is not maintainable. 9. In a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1979 Allahabad Page 218 M/s. Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and others, it has been held that the words or other proceedings in the phrase "cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings" refer to proceedings of final nature. These words have been added in order to bring with in the purview of the revisional jurisdiction orders passed in proceedings of an original nature, which are not of the nature of suits, like arbitration proceedings. This phrase cannot include decisions of appeals or revisions, because then the legislature will be deemed to have contradicted itself. They will not include appeals or revisions. Thus, from the bare reading of the amended provisions of Section 115 CPC and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, it is established that revision under Section 115 CPC against the order passed on first appeal is not maintainable. 10. In view of above, the revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open for the revisionists to challenge the decree passed by the first appellate Court or the trial court, before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. Revision dismissed.