J. B. PARDIWALA, J. The appellants-original petitioners by way of this appeal seek to challenge order dated 5th April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the petition.

2. When this matter was taken up for hearing, we noticed that the entire matter arises from the suit proceedings pending in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Vyara. Prima facie, at the very outset, we were of the view that the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge would not be maintainable as the petition was substantially under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and the nature of powers exercised by the learned Single Judge are also supervisory in nature. However, learned Counsel for the appellants vociferously submitted that the petition before the learned Single Judge was under Arts. 226 and Art. 227 of the Constitution. If the petition is under Art. 226 of the Constitution, then, the order of the learned Single Judge can be assailed by filing an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that till the time Legislature effected the necessary amendment in Sec. 115 of the .Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 such orders were challenged by filing civil revision application under Sec. 115 of the Code. However, now, in view of the fact that revision applications under Sec. 115 of the Code are not maintainable against order of the nature, which was before the learned Single Judge, a writ petition would be maintainable under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel also made efforts to persuade us that a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution can be issued even in a matter arising from suit proceedings and orders passed by the Civil Judges of the subordinate Courts.

4. This appeal raises a very vexed and ticklish issue, and therefore, we have decided to look into the matter very closely and in detail.

5. It is a matter of common experience that any interlocutory order passed by a Civil Court in a suit proceeding, if not appealable, were all revisable under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As a consequence of amendment to Sec. 115 of the C.P.C. by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999), which has come into force with effect from 1-7-2002, petitions are now being preferred under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the subordinate Court.

6. Section 115 C.P.C. before its amendment by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 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 bylaw, 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."

7. It may be worth to note here that the origi