ORDER : 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this matter is heard finally. 2. This review petition has been filed for recalling/modification of the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.47/2021 (Smt. Manisha Jain Vs. General Public and another) to the extent that this Court while considering the question No.2 about maintainability of the civil revision against the appellate order passed by District Judge in the succession certificate case held in negative that such petition is not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed on the basis of Full Bench judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Jupitar Chit Fund Vs. Dwarka Diesh and others reported in AIR 1979 Allahabad 218. Though in the State of Uttar Pradesh the provision of revision has been incorporated under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the “CPC”) and certain amendments have been made vide Amendment Act No.31 of 1978 with effect from 1st August, 1978 whereby the revision is maintainable in the High Court if the cases are arising out of “original suits or other proceedings”, but in the State of Chhattisgarh no such provision is available and if any case is decided by the Court where no appeal lies, revision would be maintainble under Section 115 of the CPC. He further submits that the concerned amendments and the provisions are exclusively for the State of Uttar Pradesh, but no similar provision exists in the State of Chhattisgarh. Hence, the impugned order requires to be modified. 4. Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Haliman Bee Vs. Joya Khan & others on 08.11.2021 in Misc. Petition No.1325/2021 reported in 2021 Law Suit (MP) 1243. He submits that this Court has already entertained the similar issue in the matter of Aabda Begam and another Vs. Sheikh Asalam and others on 02.12.2016 in Civil Revision No.76/2016. He further submits that the similar issue has again been dealt with by this Court in Panawati Shrivas Vs. Aaam Janta and others passed on 06.08.2021 in Second Appeal No.233/2010. So considering the aforesaid contention, this review petition may be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that he is not disputing the aforesaid facts. 6. He further submits that the similar issue has again been dealt with by this Court in Panawati Shrivas Vs. Aaam Janta and others passed on 06.08.2021 in Second Appeal No.233/2010. So considering the aforesaid contention, this review petition may be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that he is not disputing the aforesaid facts. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. In the State of Uttar Pradesh there are certain local amendments whereby the revision is maintainable only with regard to the original suit or proceeding, whereas in the State of Chhattisgarh no such provision is available therefore, the provisions relating to reference, review and revision as mentioned in Section 388 (3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “Act of 1925”) would be applicable, which is reproduced herein:- 388. Investiture of inferior courts with jurisdiction of District Court for purposes of this Act. (1) *** (2) *** (3) An order of a District Judge on an appeal from an order of an inferior Court under the last foregoing sub-section shall, subject to the provisions as to reference to and revision by the High Court and as to review of judgment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as applied by section 141 of that Code, be final. 8. In Panawati Shrivas Vs. Aam Janta (mentioned above) while dealing with the similar issues, in Paragraphs 7 to 10 the following was observed:- “7.In the matter of Mt. Shakuran Bi and others vs Mt. Aishabi (AIR (37) 1950 Nagpur 244), the Nagpur High Court has held that where an application for succession certificate is made to the Civil Judge, under the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 388 of the Succession Act, an appeal lies from the decision of a Civil Judge to a District Judge whose decision is not open to second appeal but only to revision by the High Court. 8. 8. The principle of law laid down in the matter of Shakuran Bi (supra) was followed with approval by the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Gita Das and another vs Sephali Lata Das (2017 SCC Online Cal 15566) holding that order passed by the District Judge under proviso to Section 388 (2) of the Succession Act is final and is not assailable in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC and same would be revisable under Section 115 of CPC by the High Court. 9. Similarly, in the matter of Yashoda Sambhaji Sawant vs Savitra Sambhaji Sawant (2012) 1 Mh.L.J. 869 : (2011) SCC Online Bombay 1381 the Bombay High Court has held that in case the succession certificate granted by the Court and order passed in appeal against that order has attained finality and in view of bar contained in sub section (3) of Section 388 of the Act of 1925, second appeal would not be maintainable as the power of the High Court of entertaining a reference and revision has been retained. 10.In view of abovestated legal position, the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC would not be maintainable against the order passed by learned District Judge in an appeal under proviso to subsection (2) of Section 388 of the Act of 1925 and revision under Section 115 of the CPC would be maintainable before this Court.” 9. In the matter of Haliman Bee Vs. Joya Khan (mentioned above) the issue concerning amendment in State of Uttar Pradesh has been dealt with. The relevant paragraphs of the same is reproduced hereunder:- “20. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, there are amendment in 1976 vide "Central Amending Act 104 of 1976" in Section 115 of the C.P.C., which provides for revision against certain orders. The opening line of Section 115 of the C.P.C. as amended in the State of U.P. reads as under:- "A superior Court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceedings." 21. The opening line of Section 115 of the C.P.C. as amended in the State of U.P. reads as under:- "A superior Court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceedings." 21. Thus, in State of U.P. due to the aforesaid amendment, a revision is maintainable only with regard to original suit or proceedings similar to original suit and is not maintainable with regard to any order passed in an appellate proceeding but in Madhya Pradesh, which is a different State, there are provisions of reference, revision and review be it under Section 384 or Section 388 of the Act, therefore, the provisions relating to the reference, review and revision in the Code, as existing on the date of their application, are to be taken into consideration. 22. Thus, there is alternative remedy under Section 388(3) of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this petition under Section 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable and only civil revision is maintainable.” 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis and after going through the provisions under Section 388 (3) of the Act of 1925 as also Section 115 of CPC, it is explicit that the order passed by the District Judge on an appeal is subject to the provisions as to reference and revision by the High Court and the same would be revisable under Section 115 of the CPC. 11. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to recall the order dated 17.11.2021 passed in Civil Revision No.47/2021 to the extent that civil revision is not maintainable before the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC against the appellate order passed by the District Judge in the succession certificate case. The other part of the said case shall remain intact. 12. Thus, this review petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. A copy of this order shall also be kept with the Civil Revision No.47/2021.