JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. – Heard Shri Devi Nandan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.09.2015 passed by opposite party no.1/District & Session Judge, Gonda. 3. Facts in brief of the present case are that petitioner filed a suit for possession of property recorded as Khata No.3309 situated at Mohalla Pandey Bazar, Pargana and District-Gonda which she had purchased through registered sale deed dated 26.05.2000 registered as Regular Suit No.1541 of 2001 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gonda. 4. By order dated 25.11.2013 issue nos.10 and 11 have been framed which reads as under : - ^^D;k fookfnr lEifRr f'kuk[r ;ksX; ugha gS tSlk fd mRrj i= dh /kkjk 38 esa dFku fd;k x;k gSA D;k izLrqr ekeys esa m0iz0 o uxj ikfydk vko';d i{kdkj gSA** 5. By order dated 07.05.2015, Additional Civil Judge II (Senior Division), Gonda had rejected defendant's application for deciding the issue no.11 as a preliminary issue. 6. Aggrieved by the same, defendant/Zuber filed a revision bearing Civil Revision No.164/2015 under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. By order dated 15.09.2015, opposite party no.1/District & Session Judge, Gonda admitted the same which reads as under : - ^^is'k gqvkA fuxjkuhdrkZ o foi{kh la[;k 01@dSos;Vj ds fo}ku vf/koDrk mifLFkrA mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks vaxhdj.k ds fonw ij lquk o fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k dk voyksdu fd;kA iz'uxr vkns'k varoZrhZ vkns'k ugha gSA flfoy fuxjkuh vaxhd`r dh tkrh gSA iathd`r gksA 'ks"k foi{kh dks uksfVl tkjh gksA iSjoh lIrkg Hkhrj dh tk;A i=koyh fnukad 03-11-1995 dks lquok;h gsrq is'k gksA** 7. Order dated 15.09.2015 passed in Revision No.164/2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 8. Today, when the matter was taken up in the revised list, neither opposite party nor his counsel has appeared. 9. Order dated 15.09.2015 passed in Revision No.164/2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 8. Today, when the matter was taken up in the revised list, neither opposite party nor his counsel has appeared. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the core question which is to be considered in the present case is to the effect that whether against the order dated 07.05.2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge II (Senior Division), Gonda thereby rejecting the defendant's application for deciding issue no.11 which comes within the parameter of ambit and scope of case decided to enable him to file revision under Section 115 of CPC and if not, then in that circumstances, revision filed by him under Section 115 CPC is maintainable and the order dated 15.09.2015 passed by opposite party no.1/District & Session Judge, Gonda is sustainable under law. 10. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under U.P. Ordinance No. 25 of 2003 and 26 of 2003 by which second proviso has been added of Sub section 3 of the Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to learned Standing counsel these two ordinance have been incorporated in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Civil Procedure Code (U.P. Amendment) Act, 2003 (U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003). The said amendment has received the assent of the President on 19th December 2003 and the amended act has been published in the U.P. gazette Extra Part I, section (Ka), dated 20th December 2003. The original text of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as stood present under the Central Act as well as after U.P. Amendment of 2003, for convenience are reproduced as under: - Original Text as per Central Act 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,. 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 proceeding." U.P. Amendment as per Central Act "115 Revision-(1)A Superior Court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate court 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 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- 1. the district Court, where the valuation of a case decided by a Court subordinate to it does not exceed five lakh rupees; 2. the High Court, where the order sought to be revised was passed in a case decided by the district court or where 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." 11. A plain reading of the proviso added by U.P. Amendment added in Sub section 3 of Section 115 reveals that an order of the subordinate court may be set aside under revisional jurisdiction apart from other grounds, on the ground that if it is allowed to stand would occasion to failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. The amendment done in sub-section of Section 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 provided by sub-section 1 of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. The statement of object and reason of Civil Procedure Code U.P. Amendment Act 2003 reveals that the legislatures had amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to empower the District Judge to revise the orders of courts subordinate to them arising out of original suits of the valuation up to Rs. 5,00,000/-. 13. 12. The statement of object and reason of Civil Procedure Code U.P. Amendment Act 2003 reveals that the legislatures had amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to empower the District Judge to revise the orders of courts subordinate to them arising out of original suits of the valuation up to Rs. 5,00,000/-. 13. Relevant portion from the statement of aims and object is reproduced as under: - "With a view to removing the difficulties, it has been decided to amend Section 115 of the said Code in its application to Uttar Pradesh to provide for empowering the District Judges to revise the orders of the Courts subordinate to them arising out of original suits of the valuation up to Rupees Five Lakhs." 14. Thus the purpose of said amendment was to confer power on the District Judges to entertain the revision relating to the properties having evaluation up to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs). U.P. amendment further adds certain additional grounds as obvious from the plain reading of Sub-Section 2, 3 and 4 of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interference under the revisional jurisdiction. 15. While considering the section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Sub-section 1, 2, 3 and 4 should be read as a whole and not in isolation. Some of the words which places dominant role while considering the power conferred by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are "Case decided, order made in favour of the party and order deciding an issue." 16. Under Sub-section 1 any case decided in a suit where the subordinate court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity may be questioned under the revisional power. According to BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, SEVENTH EDITION (page 414); the word "decision" has been interpreted in the following manner : - "Decision: - A judicial determination after consideration of the fact and the law; esp., a ruling, order, or judgement pronounced by a court when considering or disposing of a case. 17. According to BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, SEVENTH EDITION (page 414); the word "decision" has been interpreted in the following manner : - "Decision: - A judicial determination after consideration of the fact and the law; esp., a ruling, order, or judgement pronounced by a court when considering or disposing of a case. 17. The word "appealable decision" has been defined in the BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (supra) is as under: - "Appealable Decision: - A decree or order that is sufficiently final to receive appellate review (such as an order granting summary judgement), or an interlocutory decree or order that is immediately appealable, use. By statute (such as an order denying immunity to a police officer in a civil-rights suit)" 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S.Khanna v. F.J. Dillon AIR 1694 Sc 947 had settled the law that the word "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 a 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 court of a proceedings. 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. 19. Therefore to attract the provision contained in sub-section 1 of the 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 Clause (a),(b) or (c) sub-section 1 of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 20. Sub-section 2 of Section 115 relates to incorporation of a certificate in the memo of revision to the affect that no revision lies in district court in case a person approaches high court because of its violation or for other reason given in sub-section 2. 21. 20. Sub-section 2 of Section 115 relates to incorporation of a certificate in the memo of revision to the affect that no revision lies in district court in case a person approaches high court because of its violation or for other reason given in sub-section 2. 21. Under Sub-section 3 the legislature had provided that the superior court shall not interfere under this section, means under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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 (Clause (I) 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. The legislature to their wisdom used the word "under this section" in sub section 3 and further magnifies the availability of right to file a revision by using the word "whenever finally disposed of suit or other proceeding". Under Clause 2 of sub-section 3 another adjective or ground has been added providing that in case the order allowed to stand would occasion to failure of justice. In view of using the word "under this section" in sub-section with all clarity legislatures had provided that revisional right may be available to an aggrieved party under Clause (1) 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 can not be read in isolation. 22. This is further clear as per sub-section 4 of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under explanation 1 of sub-section 4 the legislature to their wisdom had defined the superior court as the district court where valuation of a case decided not exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs, and High Court where valuation of cases decided of more than Rs. 5 lakhs. In Clause 1 A and 1 B of sub-section 4 again the word the "case decided" has been used by legislature. 5 lakhs, and High Court where valuation of cases decided of more than Rs. 5 lakhs. In Clause 1 A and 1 B of sub-section 4 again the word the "case decided" has been used by legislature. A combined reading of sub-section 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure reveals that a revisional power is confined to decision where a controversy has been decided by the court while determining the issue or dispute in question. 23. In the case of M/S Sultan Leather Finishers(Pvt.) Ltd. and Others v. Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Unnao and Others ( 2005 (23) LCD 476 . After considering the word issue used in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been held as : - "11. Keeping in view the definition of word "issue" it can be very well inferred from the word "any order deciding an "issue" existing in the proviso of sub section C of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is comprehensive in nature and shall cover almost each and every issue or point of decision in a suit during the course of trial. Accordingly, in case an application is decided finally moved for a particular relief or order during the pendency of a suit, in pursuance to provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, its final disposal shall amount to decide an issue in the course of a suit. In the absence of any remedial provision a revision shall lie against such order under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure." 24. In a case reported in 2003 (6) SCC 659 , Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court had interpreted Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hon'ble Supreme Court had reiterated the earlier settled principle of interpretation holding that the amendment done in the section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure relates to procedures. It has been held by Apex Court that court can not read anything into statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous and a statute is the edict of the legislature. Casus omisus can not be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and ambiguity in the statutory provisions. It has been held by Apex Court that court can not read anything into statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous and a statute is the edict of the legislature. Casus omisus can not be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and ambiguity in the statutory provisions. The power of hearing revision is generally given to superior court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law (para 17 of the judgement). It has been held by Apex Court (supra) that orders that are not appealable are generally speaking those which are procussual i.e. interlocutory or incidental orders regulating proceedings but not deciding any of the matters of controversy in the suit.(para 31). 25. It has been further held by Apex Court (supra) that Section 115 makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether order in favour of party applying for revision whenever given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is "Yes" then revision shall be maintainable. But on contrary if the answer is "No" then the revision shall not be maintainable. Therefore, in case an order does not finally decide the list, the revision shall not be maintainable. For convenience relevant portion from the judgement of Shiv Shakti (supra) is reproduced as under: - "19. It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statue is the determinative factor of legislative intent. Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental references to referents. The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature enacting it. (See Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. price Water house.) The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As observed in Crawford V. Spooner courts cannot aid the legislatures' defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or ment, and by construction make u p deficiencies which are left there. (See State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel.) It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. [See Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd.] Rules of interpretation do not permit courts to do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of a doubtful meaning. Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. (Per lord Loreburn, L.C. in Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans, quoted in Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah.) 32. 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." 26. In the case reported in 2006 (24) LCD 452 , Haider Abbas v. Additional District Judge, a Division Bench of this Court after considering various Apex Court judgements held that meaning assigned to the word or phrases in the statute should not be construed otherwise then what is reflected from its plain reading. It has been further held by the Division Bench of this court (supra) that an explanation given in the section of a statute are being provided to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act to clarify the vagueness and to provide additional support to the dominant object of the act or provision in question. Explanation can not change in anyway or may interfere with the enactment or any part thereof. Accordingly, also effect of sub-section 1 of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not be diluted. 27. Explanation can not change in anyway or may interfere with the enactment or any part thereof. Accordingly, also effect of sub-section 1 of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not be diluted. 27. In view of above settled proposition of law relating to the interpretation of an statute it may be safely held that unless an issue or controversy is determined or decided finally, it shall not be appropriate to say that "case has been decided" or the issue has been decided by the court to attract the revisional power conferred by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while interpreting the provisions as provided under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case ofForeshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through Legal Representative and others (2015) 6 SCC 412 held as under : - "31. For better appreciation of the object and interpretation of Section 9A, it would be proper to have a comparison with the provision contained in Order 14, Rule2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 2 Order 14 reads as under: - "2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.- (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to-- (a) the jurisdiction of the court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue." 32. Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, confers power upon the Court to pronounce judgment on all the issues. Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, confers power upon the Court to pronounce judgment on all the issues. But there is an exception to that general Rule i.e., where issues both of law and fact arise in the same suit and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issue of law, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law. 33. Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it existed earlier reads as under: - "Issues of law and of fact: - Whether issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be "disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined". 34. A comparative reading of the said provision as it existed earlier to the amendment and the one after amendment would clearly indicate that the consideration of an issue and its disposal as preliminary issue has now been made permissible only in limited cases. In the un-amended Code, the categorisation was only between issues of law and of fact and it was mandatory for the Court to try the issues of law in the first instance and to postpone the settlement of issues of fact until after the issues of law had been determined. On the other hand, in the amended provision there is a mandate to the Court that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court has to pronounce judgment on all the issues. The only exception to this is contained in sub-rule (2). This sub-rule relaxes the mandate to a limited extent by conferring discretion upon the Court that if the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of "on an issue of law only", it may try that issue first. The only exception to this is contained in sub-rule (2). This sub-rule relaxes the mandate to a limited extent by conferring discretion upon the Court that if the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of "on an issue of law only", it may try that issue first. The exercise of this discretion is further limited to the contingency that the issue to be so tried must relate to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by a law in force." 29. In view of the above said facts, the order dated 07.05.2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge II (Senior Division), Gonda thereby rejecting defendant's application for deciding the issue no.11 as a preliminary issue does not comes within the definition of "an order passed in a case decided", so the said order is not revisable under Section 115 C.P.C. Accordingly, the order dated 15.09.2015 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Gonda in Revision No.164 of 2015 is liable to be set aside. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.09.2015 is set aside. The trial Court/Additional Civil Judge II (Senior Division), Gonda is directed to decide the matter in issue in accordance with law. Petition allowed.