( 1 ) THE short and important question that arises for consideration in this revision is "in judging the pending revisions should the high Court apply the criteria in Section 115 cpc as amended by CPC (Amendment) act, 1999 (Act 46/99) or as it stood prior to amendment on its coming into force with effect from 01-07-2002 .

( 2 ) AS the said issue frequently arises for consideration in almost all cases which come up for admission after 01-07-2002 and also at the time of hearing the cases which were admitted prior to 01-07-2002 and having regard to the importance I requested the learned Senior Counsel Sri Challa seetharamaiah to assist the Court apart from the Counsel appearing for the parties.

( 3 ) IT is relevant to note the British given procedural laws of 1898 and 1908 was all that the country inherited, they met a need that was why they had lasted except certain minor amendments to the provisions of 1908 to suit the need, whereas the Code of criminal Procedure, 1898 has been repealed by Act 2 of 1974. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy it will be convenient to refer the statutory provisions relating to revision.

( 4 ) SECTION 115 CPC prior to its amendment, reads as under:"115. 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. Section 115 CPC as amended by amendment act, 1976 reads as under:"115. (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 (a)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 (b)the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. (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. 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. "it may be credit worthy to note the statement of objects and reasons of amending Act 104/76, which were placed before the Parliament along with the Bill proposing the said amendment, which reads asunder:"clause 43 (Original Clause 45):- By clause 45 of the Bill, S. 115 of the Code was proposed to be omitted. The question whether it is at all necessary to retain S. 115 was carefully considered by the Committee. The Law commission has expressed the view that, in view of Art. 227 of the constitution, S. 115 of the Code is no longer necessary. The Committee however, feel that the remedy provided by Art. 227 of the constitution is likely to cause more delay and involve more expenditure. The remedy provided in S. 115 is, on the other hand, cheap and easy. The committee, therefore, feel that S. 115, which serves a useful purpose, need not be altogether omitted particularly on the ground that an alte