JUDGMENT : ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, J. 1. By this Civil Revision, the petitioners challenge and seek setting aside the order dated 16.08.2021, for short impugned order, passed by the court of learned City Judge (Sub Judge), Srinagar, for short Trial Court, in a suit titled Zahoor Ahmad Shah vs. Mohammad Shafi Shah and Others, by virtue of which the trial court has granted permission to the respondent/plaintiff to amend the suit despite the fact that the main suit was not maintainable, on the grounds detailed out in the civil revision. The petitioner has further prayed that the suit be dismissed for want of cause of action and other legal grounds which the trial court has failed to appreciate for the last 17 years. 2. Briefly put the case of the petitioners is that in the year 1992 the respondent asked for his share of inheritance during the lifetime of his father, which was not legally permissible, however, on humanitarian grounds and due to intervention of family friends the petitioner no. 1, the mother of the petitioner no. 1, the late father of petitioners and the respondent entered into a settlement which was reduced into writing through a Surrender/Renunciation Deed duly registered by the Sub Registrar, Srinagar, in January, 1994. In terms of the said settlement the respondent was paid an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- by the petitioner no. 1/defendant no. 2 in the suit for and on behalf of his father (defendant no. 1 in the suit) from his personal resources. 3. The respondent remained contended for almost a decade and thereafter filed a vague, vexatious, ambiguous and a preposterous suit in the year 2004 challenging all the documents like sale deed; rent deed; surrender deed being against the rights of the plaintiff/respondent herein; declare the plaintiff/respondent herein to be entitled to receive his due share out of the whole property in suit in terms of inheritance and succession besides, the respondent also sought a prohibitory injunction against the petitioners herein from causing any interference in the possession and occupation of plaintiff/respondent herein over the orchard mentioned in the suit. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent herein filed an application seeking certain amendments to the plaint which was granted by the trial court in terms of the impugned order. Aggrieved of the impugned order, the petitioners challenge the same by the instant revision petition. 5. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent herein filed an application seeking certain amendments to the plaint which was granted by the trial court in terms of the impugned order. Aggrieved of the impugned order, the petitioners challenge the same by the instant revision petition. 5. The Respondent had prayed for the following reliefs in the civil suit: “1. A decree in the nature of declaration be issued in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, declaring the documents (1) Sale-Deed (2) Rent Deed (3) Surrender Deed filed as part of pleadings as invalid and be further declared opposed to rights of plaintiff and public policy, further decree be issued in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant declaring the sale and purchase of land/orchard at Badampora, Kurhama Ganderbal, Srinagar as benami. 2. A decree for declaration be issued in favour of 01 plaintiff and against defendants declaring him to be entitled to receive his due share out of whole property mentioned in suit in accordance with rights of inheritance and succession. 3. A decree for prohibitory injunction be issued in favour of plaintiff and against defendants restraining them from causing any inheritance in the possession and occupation of plaintiff over the orchard mentioned.” 6. The petitioners had filed a written statement in opposition to the suit stating therein that the suit being frivolous and vexatious deserves to be dismissed as the plaintiff/respondent herein, has absolutely no cause of action to file the suit. For instance relief (b) of the suit was stated to be frivolous because the defendant no. 1, late father of petitioners and respondent herein was alive when the relief of succession and inheritance was prayed for. 7. On the averments recorded in the written statement and taken note of, in brief, hereinbefore, the defendants/petitioners herein had sought dismissal of the suit. 8. The trial court while considering the matter observed that the amendment sought for will not amount to changing the nature of the plaint, therefore, allowed the application for amendment in terms of impugned order. 9. The respondent had filed a Caveat application, therefore, there was no occasion to issue notice to him as he was present and was heard on the date the matter was taken up for consideration. 9. The respondent had filed a Caveat application, therefore, there was no occasion to issue notice to him as he was present and was heard on the date the matter was taken up for consideration. The respondent raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the revision petition; therefore, the parties were heard on the maintainability part only. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. Before recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be quite appropriate to refer to the dispute more elaborately herein. 12. The respondent and the petitioners are the children of Late Mohammad Shafi Shah son of Late Gh. Mohammad Shah Resident of Chota Bazar, Kani Kadal, Srinagar. The said Mohammad Shafi Shah had married twice. Out of his first wedlock the respondent is born and the petitioners are begotten out of his second marriage. Since the said Mohammad Shafi had divorced his first wife, the mother of the respondent, therefore, the petitioners were living with his father afterwards and the respondent was living with his mother who also remarried and has two children out of said wedlock. The respondent claims share of inheritance out of the property which the respondent believes to be is of his father. However, the petitioners refute such contention and plead that the property, mention of which is made in the suit, solely belongs to the petitioners and respondent has nothing to do with it. The petitioners have averred in the revision petition that in the year 1992 the respondent was shot at in his leg and when he raised a claim for his share, although not entitled to, he was paid on humanitarian grounds and with the intervention of family friends an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- and a renunciation deed, in this behalf, has been duly executed before the Sub Registrar Srinagar. 13. The respondent, subsequently in the year 2004 filed a civil suit seeking the reliefs taken note of hereinbefore. 14. The suit has been resisted by the petitioners by filing written statement. 15. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application seeking permission to effect certain amendments to the suit, which the trial court by order dated 16.8.2021 allowed. 16. This is the narration as regards the proceedings of the case before the trial court. 17. Mr. 14. The suit has been resisted by the petitioners by filing written statement. 15. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application seeking permission to effect certain amendments to the suit, which the trial court by order dated 16.8.2021 allowed. 16. This is the narration as regards the proceedings of the case before the trial court. 17. Mr. B.A. Bashir, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submits that the order impugned is passed without proper application of mind and without considering the objections of the petitioners. He further submits that the order impugned has been passed by the Trial Court in disregard of the Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. 18. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that by the impugned order the Trial Court has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. He submits that the impugned order is unreasonable and mechanical as it allowed amendment in a hopelessly time barred claim. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set-aside and the suit of the respondent be also dismissed being not maintainable. In support of his submissions the learned senior counsel referred to and relied upon the case law reported as AIR 1992 Raj 1 : AIR 1992 A.P. 183 : AIR 2002 Kar. 387 : AIR 2000 All 90 : AIR 1987 MP 140 : (2009) 5 SCC 162 : AIR 2000 Bom. 34 : (1998) 2 SCC 70 : (2003) 1 SCC 557 : (1977) 4 SCC 467 : (1988) 3 SCC 57 : (2011) 9 SCC 223 : (1973) 1 SCC 1 : (1996) 7 SCC 486 and 1998 SLJ 22. 19. Mr. Zahoor Ahmad Shah, respondent, while resisting the claim of the petitioners raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the revision petition against the order passed by the trial court in a pending civil suit. The respondent questions the maintainability with the application of proviso to Section 115 of the CPC which allows revision against the order of the court below only when such an order culminates the proceedings or decides the suit. In support of his submissions the respondent refers to and relies upon the case law reported as AIR 2003 2434: 2011 (3) JKJ 173: 2012 (1) JKJ 411 and 2010 (18) SCC 329. 20. Section 115 of the CPC, for facility of reference, is taken note of hereunder: “115. In support of his submissions the respondent refers to and relies upon the case law reported as AIR 2003 2434: 2011 (3) JKJ 173: 2012 (1) JKJ 411 and 2010 (18) SCC 329. 20. Section 115 of the CPC, for facility of reference, is taken note of hereunder: “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, and if such subordinate court appears: (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. (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. (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.” 21. In rebuttal the learned senior counsel submits that the revision petition is well within the proviso referred to by the respondent as the impugned order decides the whole issue. He further submits that even if the revision petition is held to be not maintainable the court is competent enough to convert the proceedings into writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution. In support of his submissions the learned senior counsel places reliance on case law reported as (2003) 6 SCC 675 . 22. Considered the submissions made and went through the entire material made available. 23. There are absolutely no two opinions about the maintainability of a revision petition when it questions the order which is of interim nature and does not decide the suit. The proviso to Section 115 CPC provides in unambiguous terms that no revision will lie against an order that has not decided the suit as a whole or by virtue of which the proceedings do not get culminated. 24. The proviso to Section 115 CPC provides in unambiguous terms that no revision will lie against an order that has not decided the suit as a whole or by virtue of which the proceedings do not get culminated. 24. The further interpretation of the proviso attached with Section 115 of the CPC is made by this Court in case titled Manohar Lal vs. Romesh Chander, 2012 (1) JKJ 411 holding that no revision will lie against an order which is interim in nature and does not finally decide the lis. It would be profitable to reproduce relevant portion of paragraph 14 of the judgment herein, thus: “.....Section 115 is essentially a source of power for the High Court to supervise the subordinate courts. It does not in any way confer a right on a litigant aggrieved by any order of the subordinate court to approach the High Court for relief. The scope for making a revision under S.115 is not linked with a substantive right. The Court making a comparison of Section 115 CPC as it stood before the amendment and after the amendment held: A comparison of two provisions of S.115 as they stood before amendment and after the amendment of 1999 shows that while proviso (a) of the un-amended provision has been retained in its totality. In the amended provisions clause (b) of the proviso has been omitted. It is to be noted that prior to the amendments to the Code by the old Amendment Act, the power of revision was wider. By the amendment, certain positive restrictions were put on the High court’s power to deal with the revisions under S.115. Prior to the said amendment, it was not strictly necessary that the impugned would have the result of finally deciding the Lis or the proceedings in the lower courts. In fact, the power could be exercised in any case where jurisdictional error was committed by the original court or where substantial injustice had resulted...... A plain reading of S.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. But on the contrary, if the answer is “no” then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is of 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 S.115.” 25. In yet another case titled Kapil Dev Singh vs. Raj Kumari, 2011 (3) JKJ 172 this court has taken a similar view. 26. Taking cue from the above position of law, the Revision petition in hand is held to be not maintainable against the order impugned. 27. Now as far as converting the proceedings into writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is concerned, the said plea is also not available to the petitioners as the order impugned does not come within the contours of Article 227. 28. It is well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a Court of appeal. It is equally well-settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held, that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this respect can be placed on a catena of Judgments of this Court including the ones in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta and Another, M/s India Pipe Fitting Co. vs. Fakruddin M.A. Baker and Another, Ganpat Ladha vs. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha and Others vs. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan and Another, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram, Venkatlal G. Pittie vs. Bright Bros Pvt. Ltd. and State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and Others, Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash, Shamshad Ahmad and Others vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) through LRs. and Others, Ms. Celina Coelho Pereira and Others vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others. 29. and Others, Ms. Celina Coelho Pereira and Others vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others. 29. The civil dispute between the parties, pending before the Court below, out of which the impugned order has been passed, cannot by any stretch of imagination be declared as order beyond the jurisdiction of the Court or having exceeded the limits of the authority and disobeying the law. In the view so taken, there is no scope for converting the civil revision into the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard has been made to the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported as 2010 (8) SCC 329 . It would be profitable to reproduce paragraph 55 of the judgment herein: “55. In paragraph 38, sub-paragraph (4) at page 695 of the report, the following principles have been laid down in Surya Dev Rai (supra) and they are set out: “38 (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.” 30. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent, therefore, prevails and is, accordingly, allowed holding the petitioners’ Revision Petition as not maintainable. 31. For all what has been said hereinbefore, the court is of the considered view that the revision petition is not maintainable, therefore, is dismissed along with connected CMs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 32. While taking note of the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the suit is pending since 11 years and by the impugned order the matter is further prolonged, the trial court is directed to take up the matter and decide the same on merits expeditiously in accordance with law.