NAGAMOHAN DAS, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 10 filed O. S. No. 4/1981 against respondent Nos. 11 to 16 for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties and the same came to be decreed in part. Subsequently the decree of the trial court came to be confirmed in r. A. No. 68/1987 and finally in R. S. A. No. 700/1993. Thereafter respondent Nos. 1 to 10 filed F. D. P. No. 4/2000 to draw the final decree. In this F. D. P. No. 4/2000 petitioner filed I. A. No. 5 under orderd 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead her as a party to the final decree proceedings. The Trial Court vide order dated 25-11 -2006 dismissed i. A. No. 5 by holding that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the final decree proceedings. Aggrieved by this order of the trial court petitioner filed C. R. P. No. 828/2006 under section 115 CPC. Learned single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner referred the matter to the Division Bench on the question of maintainability of revision petition under section 115 CPC and the same reads as under

"the question as to "whether the proceeding relating to the petitioner's application -LA. No. 5 itself is 'other proceeding' within the meaning of the aforesaid proviso may require consideration. Hence, I deem it appropriate to refer this revision petition to a Division Bench for consideration is. exercise of the power conferred on me under Section 8 of the karnataka High Court Act, 1961 Registry to list this petition before the appropriate division Bench. "

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner contends, that under the impugned order of the Trial Court the right of the petitioner to implead herself as a party to the final decree proceedings is finally decided. Therefore a civil revision petition is maintainable. It is further contended that the impugned order passed under Orderd 1 Rule 10 CPC is not an appeallable order. Therefore it is contended that civil revision petition under section 115 CPC is maintainable.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for reapondents contend, that the impugned order will not amount to termination of proceedings in F. D. P. No. 4/2000 and as such the civil revision petition under section 115 cpc is not maintainable. It is further contended that proviso to section 115 (1) CPC specifies, that except where the orderd, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed off the suit or other proceedings. He contends that civil revision petition under section 115 CPC is not maintainable.

( 4 ) HEARD arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

( 5 ) PRIOR to amendment of Civil Procedure Code in the year 2002, Section 115 CPC 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 orderd in the case as it thinks fit: (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or revere any decree or orderd against which an appeal lies either to the High court or to any Court subordinate thereto. "

( 6 ) SECTION 115 CPC deals with the revisional power of the high Courts. If the order of the Trial Court is not an appellable order, then the High Court is empowered to call for the record of a case and if the Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested by law or acted with material irregularity etc. , the High Court can interfere. But by experiance it is felt that quite often the cause of delay in the trial of suites is the entertainment of petitions for revision against the interlocutory orders which invariably result in stay of proceedings. Realising this situation the pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document