JUDGMENT : Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The issue which the Division Bench needs to answer is as per the order of reference dated 04.05.2010. 2. The Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Court at Kolhapur rejecting the Petitioners' application to return the plaint on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order holds that the Court has territorial jurisdiction. 3. As per Order XLIII Rule 1 Clause (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 an order returning the plaint to be presented to a Court of Competent Jurisdiction is an appealable order. But, not an order holding that the Court has territorial jurisdiction. 4. Issue arises whether such an order would be amenable to challenge before a High Court in exercise of the Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code or the order would be liable to be challenged in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 115 of the Code underwent a significant departure when Act No. 46 of 1999 substituted the then existing proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 115 of the Code and as substituted, the proviso reads 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 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." 6. A perusal of the proviso makes it clear that the Revisional Jurisdiction of a High Court has been restricted. Thus, only such orders would be revisable where if the order was in favour of the party applying for revision would have resulted in a final disposal of the suit or other proceedings. 7. Prior to 01.07.2002 judicial verdicts were that if the order amounted to a 'Case Decided', the same would be a revisable order. A 'Case Decided' was an order which brought to an end one or more facets of the lis, but the lis continued. 8. Post amendment w.e.f. 01.07.2002 the position has undergone a change. 7. Prior to 01.07.2002 judicial verdicts were that if the order amounted to a 'Case Decided', the same would be a revisable order. A 'Case Decided' was an order which brought to an end one or more facets of the lis, but the lis continued. 8. Post amendment w.e.f. 01.07.2002 the position has undergone a change. As per the proviso only such order can be challenged by way of a revision if the decision in the revision would be of a kind where the suit or other proceedings terminate finally disposed of. 9. The decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2003) 6 SCC 659 : [2003 (3) ALL MR 696 (S.C.)], Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swarai Developers & Ors., illuminates the Court as to which order would be revisable and which would not be revisable and that orders which are not revisable are amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 32 of the decision it has been held as under: "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 or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. The legislative intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the Subject matter of revision under Section 115. There is marked distinction in the language of Section 97(3) of the Old Amendment Act and Section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act. While in the former, there was clear legislative intent to save applications admitted or pending before the amendment came into force. Such an intent is significantly absent in Section 32(2)(i). The amendment relates to procedures. No person has a vested right in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a statutory change the mode of procedure is altered, the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception, unless there is a different stipulation." 10. The amendment relates to procedures. No person has a vested right in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a statutory change the mode of procedure is altered, the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception, unless there is a different stipulation." 10. Following the law declared by the Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, we answer the reference by holding that an order rejecting an application filed by a party in a suit praying that the Court, having no territorial jurisdiction, should return the plaint, is not a revisable order and challenge to such order has to be by way of a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Writ Petition be placed before the learned Single Judge.