JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision is filed under Section 115 of the CPC challenging the legality and validity of the minutes of the meeting dated 05.07.2021 of All Nyishi Youth Association (referring herein in short, “ANYA”) whereby the tenure of the Executive Members of the ANYA has been extended till 2023 and further praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 and the subsequent order dated 06.04.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the present petitioners have been restrained from using the emblem, seal, note pad of ANYA and further restraining them from solely referring to themselves as ANYA without suffix or prefix till disposal of the main suit. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the present respondents as plaintiffs have filed a Title Suit bearing No.02 of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia for a decree for declaring the election result dated 28.12.2021, issued by the defendant No. 2, Shri Tarth Atung, as illegal. Further declaring that the defendants No. 5 to 29/ opposite parties, who were allegedly declared as elected executive members of ANYA was initially appointed illegally to the post is also illegal. 4. Pursuant to that an interlocutory application being Misc. Case No. 05/2022 was filed praying for ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants/opposite parties seeking to restrain them from either using the emblem of ANYA or in alternative prayer was made for suspending/ staying the election result dated 28.12.2021. 5. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia after hearing the plaintiffs (respondents herein this case), passed an ad-interim order dated 12.01.2022 restraining the defendants No. 1 to 25 from using emblem, seal, note pad of ANYA established in 1976 and they were also restrained from solely referring to themselves as ANYA without any suffix till further order by the court. 6. Subsequently, the said order dated 12.01.2022 was made absolute vide order dated 11.02.2022 after hearing both the parties, whereby the defendants/present petitioners were continued to be restrained from using the emblem, seal, note pad of ANYA and also they were continued to restrain themselves from solely referring to themselves as ANYA without any suffix or prefix till disposal of the main suit. 7. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.02.2022, the present petitioners filed an appeal being No. 01/2022, before the learned District Judge, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) with a prayer for quashing and setting aside of the injunction order dated 11.02.2022. After hearing both sides, the learned District Judge, Yupia not finding any illegality either in the facts or in law in the impugned order dismissed the appeal on being devoid of merit vide order dated 21.03.2022. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present revision petition is not at all maintainable as the power of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC can only be invoked in cases in which no appeal lies and the case was decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court and such Court appeared to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity whereas the petitioners have already filed an appeal before the District Court assailing the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 and the District Court had dismissed the same being devoid of merit vide order dated 21.03.2022. 9. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.02.2022, passed by the learned trial Court, they ought to have preferred a second appeal and then in the second appeal, the same ought to have been stayed by this Court whereas in the instant civil revision petition, this court has stayed the minutes of the meeting dated 05.07.2021, which is the subject matter to be decided in the title suit. 10. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following case laws:- (i) 2003 AIR (Madras.) 146 (K.S. Geetha Vs. Stanleybcuk.) (ii) (2006) 9 SCC 749 (POTHINA NARASAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS Vs. MARUPILLA AMMAJI AND OTHERS). 11. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that though the interim order was passed ex-parte there was suspension of the power of the ANYA (the respondents in Title Suit No. 02/2022); there was no suspension of election result dated 28.12.2021. 12. MARUPILLA AMMAJI AND OTHERS). 11. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that though the interim order was passed ex-parte there was suspension of the power of the ANYA (the respondents in Title Suit No. 02/2022); there was no suspension of election result dated 28.12.2021. 12. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after dismissal of the appeal petition in the District Court, Yupia, the present petitioners have filed the present revision petition is not against the order in the appeal before the District Court, Yupia and the same was filed against the proceeding conducted in the Title Suit No. 02/2022 after hearing on the maintainability. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the respondents had mistaken with the facts that the present revision petition is against the order of the learned District Judge, Yupia. It is to be clarified that the instant revision petition was filed against the order dated 06.04.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia to proceed with the trial despite illegality and validity of the minutes of the meeting dated 05.07.2021 was heard and thus, the said order dated 06.04.2022 does not come within the purview of the appeal under the appropriate provisions of the CPC. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the respective orders passed by the learned trial court. 15. Section 115 of the CPC deals with Revision, which reads as follows : 115. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the respective orders passed by the learned trial court. 15. Section 115 of the CPC deals with Revision, 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 courts 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 proceedings, 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) 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.] [Explanation.- In this section, the expression “any case which has been decided” includes any order made or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.]” 16. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it reveals that according to sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the CPC, 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 any of the following three circumstances:- (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,” mentioned in that sub-section is there, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. The records called for by the High Court as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC have to be that of a case which has been decided by a Court subordinate to the High Court. 17. In the explanation to the section it is said that the expression “any case which has been decided” includes any order made or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. 18. Sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC does not say that the Court will have to exercise power of revision on the application of the party aggrieved by the order. On the other hand, the proviso mentions about the party applying for revision and that would indicate that the proviso becomes applicable when there is an application by a party for revising an order. 19. When there is an application filed by a party for revising an order made by a subordinate Court or an order made deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding, the Court will not entertain the revision if the order had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. It is also necessary that for applying the proviso the order made must be in the course of a suit or proceedings thereby meaning that the order made should not be an order by which the suit or other proceedings is finally disposed of. The power of the revision is there with the High Court and for exercising that it is not necessary that there will have to be an application by anybody. 20. The power of the revision is there with the High Court and for exercising that it is not necessary that there will have to be an application by anybody. 20. In the case of Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Swaraj Developers reported in (2003) 2 KLT 503 (SC), the Supreme Court said that Section 115 of the CPC is essentially a source of power for the High Court to supervise the subordinate Courts and 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. There is no substantive right for filing a revision. It is well accepted proposition of law that the right of appeal is a substantive right but there is no such substantive right in making an application under Section 115 of the CPC. In Shiv Shakti’s case (supra), the Supreme Court said that a plain reading of Section 115 of the CPC as it stands now 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. The supreme Court went on to observe that if the answer is ‘yes’ then revision is maintainable and if the answer is ‘no’ then the revision is not maintainable. If the impugned order is of interim nature or does not finally decide the suit or other proceeding or the order, if it were made in favour of the party applying for revision, would not have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings, revision will not be maintainable. 21. Reverting back to the present case, the interlocutory application filed in the trial Court was disposed of by an order. The civil miscellaneous appeal was disposed of by an order. Proviso to Section 115 CPC mentions only about order and there is no mention in that section about judgment. So, the order passed by the learned District Judge in civil miscellaneous appeal will also come within the ambit of the word “order” used in Section 115 CPC. In the Civil Procure Code in Section 2(14), it is said that “order” means the formal expression of any decision of a civil Court which is not a decree. So, the order passed by the learned District Judge in civil miscellaneous appeal will also come within the ambit of the word “order” used in Section 115 CPC. In the Civil Procure Code in Section 2(14), it is said that “order” means the formal expression of any decision of a civil Court which is not a decree. Decree is defined in Section 2(2) and it reads as follows: (2) “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters of controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 114 CPC, but shall not include- (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal form an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation.- A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.” 22. It is clear from the definition of order that an order is different from a decree. Coming to the definition of judgment occurring in Section 2(9), it means that the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. It is clear from the definition of judgment that there can be a judgment regarding the grounds of decree or order. That would indicate that when an order is made by a Court, there could be a judgment containing statement given by the Judge on the grounds of the order. 23. In the case of Adimali St. Pauls Yakkobaya Suriyani Church Vs. Ithaappiri, reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 217, it was held that Sub-section (2) of Section 104 CPC which provided that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under that section considered the question whether leave for filing a further appeal before a Division Bench against the decision taken by a learned Judge in civil miscellaneous appeal could be granted. The contention of Section 104(2) would apply only to orders passed in appeal and not to judgments as in the case of a civil miscellaneous appeal was raised by the learned Judge. The contention of Section 104(2) would apply only to orders passed in appeal and not to judgments as in the case of a civil miscellaneous appeal was raised by the learned Judge. The learned Judge in the above said decision referring to the definition of order and judgment in the code held that the judgment of the Court in civil miscellaneous appeal has to be construed as an order only. The same view was taken in another case of Abdul Karim Vs. Receiver, reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 95. In the above decision referring to the definition of order, judgment and decree available in the CPC, the Court held that there is a judgment and a decree when a suit is disposed of and there is a judgment and an order when a decision is rendered by the civil Court except when finally determining the rights of the parties in a suit. The judgment pronounced by the appellate Court disposing of the civil miscellaneous appeal can be said to be one in which there is a judgment and an order made when a decision is rendered in the civil miscellaneous appeal. The judgment made in civil miscellaneous appeal will come within the ambit of the term “order” used in the proviso to Section 115 (1) CPC. 24. The proviso mentions about order made by a Court in the course of a suit or other proceeding. The term “other proceeding” used in the proviso will not be a proceeding in the suit. The use of the word as a prefix to the term “proceeding” would indicate that the proceeding made mention of the proviso is a proceeding other than a suit. Hence, it is not open to contend that an order made in an application for temporary injunction has to be treated as an order by which the proceeding for granting temporary injunction was finally disposed of. An order by which an application for granting temporary injunction is disposed of either dismissing it or granting the temporary injunction can only be an order made in the course of a suit. That order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision can never have the effect of finally disposing of the suit. When the impugned judgment was made by the appellate Court the civil miscellaneous appeal which was pending before the appellate Court came to an end. That order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision can never have the effect of finally disposing of the suit. When the impugned judgment was made by the appellate Court the civil miscellaneous appeal which was pending before the appellate Court came to an end. Even though at the time when the judgment was pronounced the civil miscellaneous appeal was disposed of, what was considered in the civil miscellaneous appeal was the question whether the plaintiff in the suit was entitled to get an interim order in the suit. 25. In Nagaro Vs. Narayan N. Yerawar, reported in AIR 2003 Bombay 178, the Bombay High Court referring to the decision in Laxmikant V. Patel Vs. Chetanbhat Shah, reported in AIR 2002 SC 275 , held that orders under Order 39 are temporary or interlocutory in nature. In the Bombay decision intention was raised that even though order made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was interlocutory after an appeal is filed under Order 43 CPC the appellate order is no longer an order either in suit or proceeding and therefore is open for revision. The Bombay High Court did not accept the above contention raised in the case and held that an order granting or refusing injunction is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 and the appeal is a contention of the proceedings and an order granting injunction if maintained in appeal merges into the appellate order and if reversed ceases to exist. The Bombay High Court went on to observe that even that order of the appellate Court continues to be temporary and that order can only be an interim order. It was held in the above decision that a revision application whether against an appellate order or original order granting or refusing injunction is not maintainable after 01.07.2002, the date on which the amendment to Section 115 CPC came into force. 26. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Surajmal Vs. Sunderlal, reported in (2003) 6 ILD 412 (MP). 26. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Surajmal Vs. Sunderlal, reported in (2003) 6 ILD 412 (MP). In the above decision, it was held that after 01.07.2002, no revision will lie against an order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC in affirmative or otherwise of the order passed in the course of suit or other proceeding on an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Reason given by the Court holding so is that the appeal in such cases has a limited object of testing the correctness or otherwise of the interim order passed in the course of the suit or proceeding without in any manner affecting final disposal of the suit and hence the order passed in appeal would fall within the purview of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC. 27. In the case of Sultan Educational Society Vs. M.S. Ali Khan, reported in (2003) 7 ILD 1105 (AP), the question arose whether a revision will be maintainable against an order by which a civil miscellaneous appeal was disposed of. A civil miscellaneous appeal was filed against an order made by the trial Court in the course of a suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Court said that the order by which the appeal was disposed of was not in the nature of finally disposing of the suit or other proceeding and hence in the light of the amendment made to Section 115 CPC a revision was not maintainable against the order by which civil miscellaneous appeal was disposed of. 28. In the case in hand, revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 06.04.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia wherein the learned Civil Judge after hearing both the parties held that and which is reproduced as follows:- “all the issues except the issue pertaining to ANYA being an unregistered group are issues of fact which is not permissible to be considered as preliminary issue and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the members of the CEM have filed the present suit, as such the issue of an unregistered group appears to have been addressed. However, more propositions put forth by the learned counsel for the opposite party in the Court regarding their continuation as ANYA can be filed in a written form, if the defendants are willing to do so. Thus, in the absence of any other issue of law raised by the defendants today, the court deemed it fit to proceed further.” 29. From the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia dated 06.04.2022 as it appears that the order does not come to a finality and disposing of the matter. On going through the order dated 06.04.2022, there is nothing to show that the order made by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia is in any way perverse or illegal. There is nothing to show that there was an error of jurisdiction which would warrant exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court is not expected to make a reappraisal of the contentions available in the record and to decide whether the decision of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yupia was correct or not on facts. 30. For the above reasons, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the revision. 31. In the result, revision is dismissed. 32. There is no order as to cost.