ORDER : This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed to assail the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.7, Shimla, H.P. in CMA No.241/2018 in C.S. No.109-1 of 2014, whereby the application of the petitioner herein under Order 16 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner herein is defendant before the learned trial Court in C.S. No.109-1 of 2014. An application under Order 16 Rule 1 (3) read with Section 151 CPC came to be filed by the petitioner/defendant with a prayer to allow the witnesses to be summoned as per the list attached. The reason assigned in the application for invoking jurisdiction under Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC was that due to inadvertence list of witnesses could not be filed and hence the petitioner/defendant intended to summon the witnesses detailed in the list attached. The list of witnesses attached by the petitioner/defendant included the name of the counsel representing the plaintiff in the case. It was stated that the counsel for the plaintiff had given reply to a legal notice sent to the plaintiff by the defendant, therefore, the examination of counsel for the plaintiff was required. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 4. At the out-set, it is to be seen as to whether the instant petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable? 5. In Tek Singh vs. Shashi Verma and another, 2021 (1) HimL.R. (SC) 158, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “6). We are constrained to observe that every legal canon has been thrown to the winds by the impugned judgment. First and foremost, the 1999 amendment to the CPC added a proviso Section 115 which reads as follows: “115. In Tek Singh vs. Shashi Verma and another, 2021 (1) HimL.R. (SC) 158, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “6). We are constrained to observe that every legal canon has been thrown to the winds by the impugned judgment. First and foremost, the 1999 amendment to the CPC added a proviso Section 115 which reads as follows: “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, 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 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. 2. Xxx xxx xxx (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. A reading of this proviso will show that, after 1999, revision petitions filed under Section 115 CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders. (7) Even otherwise, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only. This is well settled. In D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. Sarup Singh and Others, (1970) 2 SCR 368 this Court held: “The position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by the High Court in the proceedings for specific performance of the agreement in question. Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to the case in hand. The words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" as used in this clause do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may, in our view, relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. The High Court does not seem to have adverted to the limitation imposed on its power under Section 115 of the Code. Merely because the High Court would have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the question of continuing stay of the reference proceedings pending decision of the appeal, could hardly justify interference on revision under Section 115 of the Code when there was no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Additional District Judge in his manner of dealing with this question. It seems to us that in this matter the High Court treated the revision virtually as if it was an appeal.” at Pg.373.” 6. Thus, in view of the provision of Section 115 of CPC as well as aforesaid exposition of law, the petition is not maintainable. The impugned order did not decide any issue in the course of suit or other proceedings. Even if the prayer made in application under Order 16 Rule 1 (3) CPC was allowed, it would not have finally disposed of the suit or any other proceedings. 7. The impugned order did not decide any issue in the course of suit or other proceedings. Even if the prayer made in application under Order 16 Rule 1 (3) CPC was allowed, it would not have finally disposed of the suit or any other proceedings. 7. The perusal of the impugned order otherwise also reveals that the same does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, which is sine qua non in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. The learned trial Court has allowed the application of the petitioner/defendant except to the extent the prayer was made to summon and examine learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. No illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, which is well reasoned. Even otherwise, the summoning of learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent as a witness by petitioner/defendant was not necessary as the document sought to be proved through such witness, could be proved by the petitioner/defendant even in absence of examination of learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. Noticeably, the petitioner/defendant has not even started his evidence. Even the statement of petitioner/defendant has not been recorded. The prayer of the petitioner/defendant to examine learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent as witness, in the given circumstances of the case, does not appear to be bonafide. 8. In view of the above discussion, the petition is held to be not maintainable and is also without any merit. The petition is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications if any.