The main legal point established is that the revision under Section 115 of CPC is maintainable only if the challenged order would have finally disposed of the suit/proceedings.

( 1 ) PETITIONER in these two civil revision petitions is the plaintiff and the respondents in these petitions are the defendants in OS No 188 of 1990, on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Thirthahalli. After completion of evidence, when the suit was posted for arguments, petitioner herein filed IA-32 for re-opening the case and IA-33 for amendment to the plaint. Both the applications have been rejected by the trial court by a common order dated 22-10-2002. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed these petitions under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THE proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 115, substituted with effect from 1-7-2002 makes it clear that the High Court shall not, in exercise of power under Section 115, vary or reverse any order made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where such order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding.

( 3 ) A learned Single Judge, before whom the cases were listed, has referred these petitions to a Division Bench on 17-1-2003 to consider the question whether the revision petitions are maintainable, having doubted the decision of another learned Single Judge in regard to the scope of Section 115 of CPC as amended by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999. Though the citation is not given, we are told that the reference was with reference to the decision rendered on 9-1-2003 in TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION vs NRI FILM PRODUCTION ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. , (2003 AIR-KAR, HCR 418 ). In the said decision, it was held that a narrow interpretation is not to be placed on the proviso to Section 115 (1); and where any specific case of injustice or extreme prejudice is brought to the notice of the High Court, it is bound to step in to render justice. In other words, the learned Single Judge was of the view that even if the order under revision would not have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. If it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, the power under Section 115 CPC can still be exercised in cases where injustice or extreme prejudice (irreparable loss) is made out.

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, in MEENAKSHAMMA vs MUNIVENKATAPPA (ILR 2003 KAR 2753) another Single Judge of this Court has held that a revision under amended Section 115 CPC would lie against an order which allows a party to re-open the case after evidence is concluded even though it did not fulfil the requirement of the proviso to Section 115 (1) of CPC. The learned Single Judge, following the decision of the Supreme Court in BALDEVDAS SHIVLAL vs FILMSTAN DISTRIBUROTRS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. , (AIR 1970 SC 406), has also observed thus: the code of Civil Procedure, envisages several provisions enabling the parties to seek interim reliefs in respect of the subject matter of the suit or in respect of their procedural rights in order to prove the case. The reliefs granted on such applications are conveniently called as interim relief, since the application is nomenclatured as interlocutory applications, the reliefs are called otherwise as interlocutory orders. The proceedings in different types of interlocutory applications result in adjudication of rights of the parties. In some cases, the question that arise in the course of adjudication of such interlocutory applications may not arise for consideration at the time of the disposal of the suit and may not be relevant for determination at the time of final adjudication. Although the proceedings in certain category of applications filed in the suit are termed as interlocutory applications and the orders thereon as interim orders, but in real sense they are intermediate proceedings, in other words subordinate and auxiliary to the main proceedings. Any orders granted thereon are intermediate orders. To illustrate, an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 regarding grant of temporary injunction, or appointment of Receiver under