Dipak Misra, J.

1. Expressing doubt with regard to the correctness of the decisions rendered in Joydeb Banerjee V/s. Subodh Choudhary & Anr., 2005(1) PLJR 440, Raghubans Mani V/s. Mahabir Babu Marwari, (2005)4 PLJR 135, and Prem Shankar Chaudhary V/s. Special Officer, now President, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust & Ors., (2005)4 PLJR 487, the learned Single Judge thought it apposite to refer the following questions for delineation by a larger Bench:

"(i) Whether the Civil Revision against an interlocutory order (an order which could not have finally decided the suit or proceedings in favour of the party applying for revision, if same had been passed by the court concerned in his favour) is maintainable in view of the newly substituted proviso to the sub section (1) of Section 115 of the Code?

(ii) Whether, even assuming that there is such a bar, still the High Court can interfere with such orders under "Civil Supervisory Jurisdiction"?

(iii) Whether in each and every such Civil Revision, even if a petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code, the High Court can hear and decide the same in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

(iv) Whether all such revisions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be allowed to be converted into a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?"

In view of the aforesaid situation, the matter has been placed before us.

2 Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was amended and substituted by the Amendment Act, 1999, which came into force on 1.7.2002.

"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 the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.]

[(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.

[(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.]

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.]"

3. It is worth noting that challenge to amendments made to the Code by Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and Amendment Act 22 of 2002 came to be dealt with in Salem Advocates Bar Association V/s. Union of India & Ors., (2003)1 SCC 49 wherein the Apex Court expressed the view that the amendments that have been made do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.

4. In Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur V/s. Swaraj Developers and Others, (2003)6 SCC 659, the Apex Court was considering the effect of the amendments to Section 115 of the Code. The matter arose from various High Courts holding that the revisions filed before them under Section 115 of the Code were not maintainable, since an order passed in favour of the party applying for revision would not have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. Their Lordships noted that after the amendments, while proviso (a) of the unamended provision has been retained in its totality, in the amended provisions, clause (b) of the proviso has been omi