JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party no.4 is dispensed with. 3. By means of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.11.2020 passed in Revision Case No.1542 of 2020/Rai Bareli, Computerized Case No.R20201058001542 (Jagdish Prasad vs. Shiv Pyari) filed under Section 219, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as ' Act of 1901'). 4. The brief facts of the case to that effect are that the petitioner preferred an application for amendment before opposite party no.3, Nayab Tehsildar, Dalmau, District-Rai Bareli in a mutation case which was filed based upon the Will dated 02.04.1991 under Section 34 of Act of 1901 registered as Case No.49/SS/57158/72/102/2010 (Jagdish Prasad vs. Jhoori[died]). The said application for amendment, whereby, the amendment was sought to incorporate Gata No.265 Area 0.232 hectare, was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2020. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2020, the petitioner preferred a Revision under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act, 1901, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.11.2020 being not maintainable. The Revisional Court observed that the order under Revision is interlocutory in nature and as such, the same is not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the Revisional Authority/Opposite party no.2-Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow has erred in exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. Further, the order rejecting the application seeking amendment in the plaint/application for mutation would be covered under the expression 'case decided' and being so, taking note of the same and also the language couched under Section 219 of Act of 1901, the revision was maintainable and ought to have been decided on the merits and not on the issue of maintainability. He further submitted that the Gata No.265 Area 0.232 hectare indicated in the application for amendment in the plaint ought to have been allowed as it would avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and would not change the nature of the case, as such, also the Revisional Authority should exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by virtue of Section 219 of Act of 1901. 7. Learned Standing counsel, has assisted this Court on the issue involved in the present petition. 8. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned Standing counsel, has assisted this Court on the issue involved in the present petition. 8. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. In order to decide the issue involved in the present petition this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 219 of Act of 1901, which reads as under:- "219. Revision. -(1) The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue Court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held and if such subordinate revenue Court appears to have - (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it bylaw, or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, pass such order in the case as he thinks fit. (2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them." 10. In the case of Raja Ram and Ors. In the case of Raja Ram and Ors. vs Additional Commissioner Faizabad Division Faizabad & Others rendered in Writ Petition No.3301 (M/S) of 2006, this court after considering Section 219 of Act of 1901 observed as under:- "From the bare perusal of Section 219 of U.P. L. R. Act, the position which emerges out is that "the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies." So keeping in view the above said facts, as per mandate of the Legislature as provided under Section 219 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act any order passed in a proceeding held by revenue court subordinate to the opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, revision is maintainable and if the Legislature has legislate as a mandate while framing Section 219 of the said Act, the same should be implemented in its letter and spirit because it is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or re-frame the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the Courts. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words that are not there. The Courts decide what the law is and not what it should be. The Courts of course adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but cannot legislate. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is sub serve of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. (See Union of India and another V. Deoki Nandan Agarwal, AIR SC 96, All India Radio V Santosh Kumar and another 71 (1998) 3 SCC 237 , Sakshi V. Union of India and others, (2004) 5 SCC 518 , Pandian Chemicals Ltd. V. CIT (2003) 5 SCC 590 , Bhavnagar University Vs. (See Union of India and another V. Deoki Nandan Agarwal, AIR SC 96, All India Radio V Santosh Kumar and another 71 (1998) 3 SCC 237 , Sakshi V. Union of India and others, (2004) 5 SCC 518 , Pandian Chemicals Ltd. V. CIT (2003) 5 SCC 590 , Bhavnagar University Vs. palitana Sugar Mills (P) and others, AIR 2003 SC 511 and J.P. Bansal V. State of Rajasthan, 2003) 5 SCC 134) In Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003) 4 SCC 753 , the Supreme Court has held that the Court can iron cut of the creases but cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain, unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to statute or read something into in which is not there. It cannot rewrite or recast the legislation." 11. It would be apt to refer that remedy of revision is also available in the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.'). Section 115 of C.P.C. provide remedy of revision. In the judgment dated 22.04.2022 passed in the case of Raj Shri Agarwal and Ors. vs. Sudheer Mohan and Ors. reported in MANU/UP/2351/2022, this Court after considering Section 115 of C.P.C. and various judgments on the scope of the same has held that petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as remedy by way of revision is available to the petitioner. The relevant part of the Judgment dated 25.04.2022 is reproduced hereunder:- “8. reported in MANU/UP/2351/2022, this Court after considering Section 115 of C.P.C. and various judgments on the scope of the same has held that petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as remedy by way of revision is available to the petitioner. The relevant part of the Judgment dated 25.04.2022 is reproduced hereunder:- “8. For better appreciation of facts, Section 115 defining revision in the Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced here-in-below:- “(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) 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.” 9. It is also apt to reproduce Section 115 of C.P.C. as applicable in the State of U.P. which have been substituted w.e.f. July, 1st, 2002. “115. Revision (1) A superior court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order and 4 where the subordinate court has — (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law ; or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested ; or (c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (2) A revision application under sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a certificate on the first page of such application, below the title of the case, to the effect that no revision in the case lies to the district court but lies only to the High Court either because of valuation or because the order sought to be revised was passed by the district court. (3) The superior court shall not, under this section, very or reverse any order made except where,— (i) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding ; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made.” 10. An emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners that reading of proviso to Section 115 of C.P.C. of Central Act clearly suggests that revision is barred against any order of the trial Court in a suit unless and until the conditions enumerated in the proviso, namely, 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 exist. Accordingly, he submits that as the rejection of application of amendment in the plaint does not bring the suit to an end, thus, the suit being not decided, the order rejecting the amendment application would not fall within the ambit of case decided. Therefore, the revision is barred and petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 11. Now, to appreciate the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be apt to compare two sections as incorporated in Central Act of the C.P.C. and its applicability in the State of U.P. 12. From the comparison of proviso of Section 115 of C.P.C. in the Central Act and Section 115 (3) (i) of C.P.C. as applicable in the State of U.P., it is manifest and clear that revision is maintainable against any order if it had been in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. Thus, it is manifest that the proviso to Section 115 of Central Act has been adopted by the State of U.P. under sub-section (3) (i) of Section 115 of C.P.C. and are common, but by U.P. Amendment, (ii) to Section 115 (3) has been incorporated which provides that the revision will also lie against any order passed by the trial Court if the conditions elucidated in Section 115 (3) (ii) of C.P.C. exists, i.e., if the order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. So in either of the two contingencies, as referred in Section 115 (3) (i) & (ii) as applicable in U.P., revision is maintainable. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has laid emphasis upon paragraph no.32 of the judgment of Shiv Shakti Cooperative House Society, Nagpur (supra), to buttress his submission, paragraph no.32 is reproduced herein-below:- “32. A plain reading of Section 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. Therefore, if the impugned order is 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 Section 115. There is marked distinction in the language of Section 97(3) of the Old Amendment Act and Section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act. While in the former, there was clear legislative intent to save applications admitted or pending before the amendment came into force. Such an intent is 6 significantly absent in Section 32(2)(i). The amendment relates to procedures. No person has a vested right in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a statutory change the mode of procedure is altered, the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception, unless there is a different stipulation. ” 14. The amendment relates to procedures. No person has a vested right in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a statutory change the mode of procedure is altered, the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception, unless there is a different stipulation. ” 14. In the opinion of the Court, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as it was a case dealing with an issue where application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. has been rejected, against which revision was preferred and the Apex Court in those facts and circumstances held that no revision is maintainable against the order passed by the trial Court, if the order is interlocutory in nature. 15. So far as the judgment in the case of Uttam Chand Kothari (supra) is concerned, the said judgment is also not applicable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as it was not considering the case under Section 115 of C.P.C. as applicable to the State of U.P. and further the judgment and arguments raised by the respondents which shall be dealt with in later part of this judgment were also not considered by the Gauhati High Court. 16. Similar is the case in the case of Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation (supra). 17. Now coming to the judgment of Five Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Rama Shanker Tiwari Vs. Mahadeo and others, reported in 1968 A.W.R. 103 (FB) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Full Bench considered the meaning of the 'case decided' and held that the order allowing or disallowing an application for amendment in pleading is a case decided and is revisable in this Section, if the amendment sought has or is likely to have direct bearing on the rights and obligation of the parties. Paras 23 & 24 of the said 7 judgment is reproduced here-in-below:- “23. I am, therefore, of opinion that every order granting or dismissing an application for amendment of pleading will not give rise to a case decided revisable u/S. 115 of the Code. Paras 23 & 24 of the said 7 judgment is reproduced here-in-below:- “23. I am, therefore, of opinion that every order granting or dismissing an application for amendment of pleading will not give rise to a case decided revisable u/S. 115 of the Code. An order allowing or disallowing an application for amendment of pleading may however, give rise to a case decided revisable under that Section if the amendment sought has or is likely to have a direct bearing on the rights and obligations of the parties and affects or is likely to affect the jurisdiction of the Court. To this extent the decision in Mst. Suraj Pali's case can, in may opinion, be said to be no longer good law. 24. The opinion of the majority of Judges constituting the Full Bench is that an order passed u/O. VI R.17 of the CPC, either allowing an amendment or refusing to allow an amendment, is a “case decided” within the meaning of that expression in S.115, Code of Civil Procedure.” 18. The five Judges Bench judgment concludes the controversy in the instant case, since the order deciding the amendment application would have a direct bearing on the right of either parties, if it is allowed or rejected. Thus, the decision on an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. would amount to a case decided and revision would lie. The said finding is also supported by the first line of Section 115 (1) which states that “superior Court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit”, reading of said line suggests that legislation has envisaged cases where there may be circumstances where an order passed in original suit may amount to a case decided, though the suit has not been decided, and revision is maintainable against the said order. 19. Similarly, para-17 of the judgment reported in 2006 (1) AWC 825 (LB) in the case of Sultan Leather Finishers Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. A.D.J. Court no.4, Unnao and others being relevant in the context of present case is reproduced herein-below:- “In one another case in Sambhaunath Digambar Jain v. Mohanlal and Ors. 19. Similarly, para-17 of the judgment reported in 2006 (1) AWC 825 (LB) in the case of Sultan Leather Finishers Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. A.D.J. Court no.4, Unnao and others being relevant in the context of present case is reproduced herein-below:- “In one another case in Sambhaunath Digambar Jain v. Mohanlal and Ors. 2003 (9) SCC 219 , where the application under Order VI, Rule 17 and Order VIII, Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the trial court declining to permit the defendant to amend the written statement and counter-claim, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that such application can be challenged by invoking revisional jurisdiction. For convenience paras 3 and 4 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sambhavnath's case (supra) is reproduced as under : “The respondents herein filed a suit against the appellant for setting aside the said order of the Registrar. On 13.9.1982, the appellant filed written statement wherein an averment was made that the portion of property where the girl's school was running was the property of the trust. It may be mentioned that the Registrar did not include the said portion of the school as trust property. On 15.9.1982, the appellant filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 and Order VIII, Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought to incorporate in its counter-claim the said school as a trust property. On 15.9.1982, the appellant filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 and Order VIII, Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought to incorporate in its counter-claim the said school as a trust property by way of an amendment to its written statement. The said application was rejected by the trial court and being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a revision which was dismissed as not maintainable. That is how the parties are before us. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the order passed by the trial court was revisable and view taken by the High Court is erroneous. That is how the parties are before us. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the order passed by the trial court was revisable and view taken by the High Court is erroneous. We are of the view that the High Court for ends of justice ought to have considered the application on merit keeping in view Rule 6A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and in accordance with the law. We, therefore, hold that the above order rejecting the application of the appellant by the trial court was revisable. ” 20. In this regard, it may also be apt to refer to paragraph-8 of the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (3) AWC 2182 , Mukhtar Ahmad vs. Sirajul Haw and Others, wherein this Court has quashed the order of revisional Court rejecting the revisioin against the order passed in the amendment application. Paragraph-8 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:- “8. In view of the aforesaid, the District Judge was not correct in holding that a revision against an order rejecting the amendment application is not maintainable. The District Judge was under law obliged to see as to whether the order passed by the court below rejecting the amendment application amounts to case decided or as to whether in the facts of the case revisional authority should vary or reverse the order passed by the court below in view of sub-section (3) of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is needless to point out that this Court in the Judgment in Smt. Pushpa alias Pooja v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2005 (3) AWC 2587 : AIR 2005 All 187 , has taken note of the judgment in the case of Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers, and has explained the legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Shakti (supra) in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said Judgment, which may be reproduced here in below: “15. The judgment of the Apex Court relied by the counsel for the petitioner in Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. (supra) lays down that the revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory or interim order. The judgment of the Apex Court relied by the counsel for the petitioner in Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. (supra) lays down that the revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory or interim order. The Apex Court while considering provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, made following observation in paragraph 32: …......(at page 2442 of AIR). “32. A plain reading of Section 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. Therefore, if the impugned order is of interim 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 Section 115.” 16. As noted above, the order passed under Section 24 disposed of finally the issue of interim maintenance to a spouse during pendency of proceedings. After passing the order under Section 24 of the Act nothing more is required to be done with regard to question of interim maintenance during pendency of proceedings and the fact is that the order passed under Section 24 finally disposes the application for interim maintenance; hence as laid down by the Apex Court in above quoted paragraph the revision shall be maintainable against an order under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.” 21. Section 115 (iii) of C.P.C. as applicable in Uttar Pradesh clearly states that the order, if allowed to stand, results in failure of justice or causes irreparable injury to the party against 10 whom it is made, the revision under Section 115 of C.P.C as applicable in the State of U.P. is maintainable. 22. Section 115 (iii) of C.P.C. as applicable in Uttar Pradesh clearly states that the order, if allowed to stand, results in failure of justice or causes irreparable injury to the party against 10 whom it is made, the revision under Section 115 of C.P.C as applicable in the State of U.P. is maintainable. 22. Viewed from this angle, if any order illegally passed by the Court below on any application is allowed to stand affecting rights of parties, it is obvious that it would cause failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made, therefore, if said condition is present, the revision against any order passed by the Court below vide Section 115 (3) (ii) of C.P.C. as applicable in U.P. would lie." 12. From the aforesaid observation(s) of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is apparent that the order allowing or rejecting the application seeking amendment would come within the purview of expression "case decided", if the amendment sought has or is likely to have direct bearing on the rights and obligations of the parties and affects or is likely to affect the jurisdiction of the Court, even if an order is passed under the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1901. The expression "case decided" finds place in Section 219 of the Act of 1901. As such, revision against an order passed on application seeking amendment would be maintainable. 13. Moreover the expression "legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held" in Section 219 of the Act of 1901, empowers the revisional authority to consider the legality or propriety of an order passed by the revenue court subordinate to him if the same is allowed to stand, results in failure of justice or causes irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. Further, if an order passed by subordinate revenue court on any application is allowed to stand affecting the rights of the parties, it would cause failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made, therefore, if the said condition is present, the revision against any order passed by the subordinate revenue court would be maintainable under Section 219 of the Act of 1901. As per Section 219 of the Act of 1901, if the subordinate revenue court exceeds its jurisdiction, or exercise its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the revision would be maintainable. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that revision was maintainable against the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by Nayab Tehsildar, rejecting the application for amendment, as such, the order dated 24.11.2020 is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the order dated 24.11.2020 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authority to decide the Revision, afresh, on merits, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to opposite party no.4-Smt. Shiv Pyari wife of late Gokaran R/o Village-Purey Valli H/o Murshidabad presently residing at Krishna Nagar, Murari ka Bagh, Pargana & Tehsil Dalmau, District-Rai Bareli, as early as possible, say within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard, without giving unnecessary adjournments for the purpose of concluding the proceedings, within the stipulated time. 15. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands allowed.