JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 05.01.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.6 of 2010. 2. A suit was filed by the revisionist for appointment of an arbitrator. It is submitted that the suit was decreed. However, the order has been reversed in appeal, vide the impugned order. 3. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that this revision is directed against an order passed at the appellate stage. 4. The full bench decision in the case of Jupiter Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dwarika Diesh Dayal and others, (1979) AIR Allahabad 218 held that an order passed at the appellate stage is an amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. 5. Counsel for the revisionist submits that in view of what is stated in paragraph 31 of the said judgment, this revision is maintainable. The full Bench does not apply to arbitration proceedings on account of what is stated in paragraph 31, referred to by him. 6. The said paragraph is extracted below: "31. The words "or other proceedings" in the phrase "cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings" refer to proceedings of original nature. These words have been added in order to bring within 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 courtadicted itself. The words "or other proceedings" have to be read ejusdem generis with the words "original suit". They will not include appeals or revision." 7. In paragraph 31, the Full Bench was considering the import of the words "or other proceedings". The sentence (underlined above by the Court for emphasis) namely : "These words have been added in order to bring within 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", in my opinion, seeks to include arbitration proceedings within the words "or other proceedings" and does not seek to exclude arbitration proceedings, therefrom as is contended by counsel for the revisionist. The words "like arbitration proceedings" used in the sentence, are by way of illustration and not for the exclusion of arbitration proceedings from the ambit of the term "or other proceedings" occurring in the initial part of the sentence. 8. I am unable to agree to the submission made by counsel for the revisionist also because in the paragraph extracted above, no distinction as is sought to be carved out, in fact exists. The instant revision may arise out of proceedings under the Arbitration Act, but it does not arise out of arbitration proceedings, per se. 9. In the case at hand, an application filed before the Court for appointment of an arbitrator was allowed. This case or proceeding would be one of original nature. The order passed in original proceedings has been reversed in appeal, admittedly, by the order impugned, which order is therefore one passed at the appellate stage. 10. The impugned order therefore, falls squarely with the ratio of the decision rendered by the Full Bench, above. 11. Under the circumstances, the instant revision is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed as such.