The central legal point established in the judgment is the material restrictions imposed on the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the amended S. 115 of the CPC.

( 1 ) THE defendant has preferred this civil revision petition under S. 115 of the Code of civil Procedure. The suit is one for recovery of money and other consequential reliefs.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs had filed I. A. No. 6 seeking amendment to the plaint for incorporating clause 2 (a), taking a stand that the plaintiffs instead of carrying on business as a partnership as originally pleaded, they were doing so as members of their Hindu undivided family. By the impugned order, the Court below has allowed the amendment. The question to be attended at the threshold is as to whether as a consequence of amendment to S. 115 of the CPC by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 46/1999), which has come into force with effect from 1-7-2002, the present civil revision petition is at all entertainable.

( 3 ) SECTION 115 CPC before its amendment by CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46/1999) read as under :-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- (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.

( 4 ) IT may be worth to note here that the original S. 115 was renumbered as sub-sec. (1) thereof by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (104 of 1076) with effect from 1-2-1977 and the proviso was added to the renumbered sub-sec. (1 ). By this very amendment, sub-sec. (2) was inserted after renumbered sub-sec. (1 ). The statement of objects and reasons which was placed before the Parliament along with the Bill proposing the above amendment read as under :-"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 alternative remedy is available under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Committee however, feel that, in addition to the restrictions contained in S. 115, an overall restriction on the scope of application for revision against interlocutory orders should be imposed. Having regard to the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its Fourteenth and Twenty-seventh Reports, the Committee recommend that S. 115 of the Code should be retained subject to the modification that no revision application shall lie against an interlocutory order unless either of the foll