JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.:---This revision application is directed against the order passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 6/95 passed on 6-8-1996 below (Exhibit 114) in Regular Civil Suit No. 56/92 whereby the order of status quo was granted. The learned Appellate Court vacating the order of status quo granted injunction in favour of the appellants before it and, therefore, the unsuccessful respondent has come up in revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. When this matter came up for arguments, it was noticed that several revisions of such nature are pending in this Court. All these revisions challenged the orders passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court either when they are concurrent or when they are reversing. The learned Counsel appearing in the above Revision Application No. 803/96 desired for some time to argue the matter. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned till today. In the meantime, the office also identified about 150 revision applications wherein identical question of law arose, namely, maintainability of all such revision applications after 1-7-2002 when the amended provisions of section 115 of the C.P.C. came into operation and the amended proviso substantially curtailed the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and prohibited entertainment of revision application in any interim or interlocutory order. Again this being important question of law, the matter was adjourned and learned members of the Bar were invited to address this Court on all the facets of this question. Accordingly, Shri M.G. Bhangde, Shri R.L. Khapre, Shri P.N. Kothari, Shri V.P. Panpalia, Shri A.P. Wachasunder and Shri S.P. Kshirsagar appearing for various applications in the revision applications contended that such revision applications are maintainable inspite of the amendments with effect from 1-7-2002. Shri S.R. Deshpande, Shri Rajeev Chhabra and Shri L.G. Deshpande, learned Advocates submitted that after the amendment, there is no question of such revision applications being maintained and, therefore, prayed that all these revision applications be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. We have to first note the submissions made by the learned Counsel in this behalf. Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, submitted that the proviso to section 115 as amended upto date covers only four situations, i.e. (i) order made in the course of a suit, (ii) order made in the course of other proceedings, (iii) order deciding any issue in the course of a suit and (iv) order deciding any issue in any other proceedings. His contention is that the proviso is attracted only in relation to the above four categories and, therefore, no revision application under section 115 of the C.P. Code will be maintainable after 1-7-2002 only in cases where the above four contingencies occur. In all other cases, according to the learned Counsel, a revision application will be maintainable. He then contended that an order under Order 39, Rules 1 2 of the C.P. Code is not an interim order in any way as it finally decides the proceedings, namely, the appeal against order and consequently, it is not an order either in the course of the suit or in the course of other proceedings, it being a final order in the other proceedings and, therefore, the revision application is maintainable.

4. Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, submitted that he adopts the arguments of Shri Bhangde, and he placed heavy reliance on a judgment of this Court in (Pundlik Balkrushna Patil and others v. Arun Shankar Patil and others)1, reported in 1985 Mh.L.J. 296, to contend that the revision application is maintainable. I will advert to this judgment at a later stage.

5. Relying on the provisions of Order 39 and Rules 1 2 of the Order 39, Shri P.N. Kothari, the learned Counsel contended that an order under Rule 1 or 2 of Order 39 adjudicates, though prima facie, on the rights of the parties, in an application under tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document