The main legal point established in the judgment is that no revision will lie against an order granting or refusing to grant temporary injunction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Challenging the legality of the order, dated 18.12.99, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Misc Appeal No. 5/99, which was directed against the order, dated 17.12.98, passed in Misc (J) Case No. 280/98, arising out of Title Suit No. 252/98, by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) No. 1, Guwahati, the Plaintiff-Petitioner has approached this Court with the present application for revision made under Section 115 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to this revision are as follows:

An application, seeking interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was made by the Plaintiff in TS 252/98. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) No. l Guwahati, upon considering the objection raised by the Defendant and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, passed an order of injunction, on 17.12.98, directing the Plaintiff-Petitioner to take steps within 60 days along with the opposite party No. 1 for demolition of his half portion of the building "by cutting pillar-joists and his sides pillars". Aggrieved by this order, the Plaintiff preferred Misc Appeal No. 5/99 aforementioned under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. 3 Kamrup, Guwahati, vide the order, dated 18.12.99, partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the order, dated 17.12.98, aforementioned, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) No. 1, Guwahati, and directed the Defendants-Respondents to ensure safety of the portion of the house of the Plaintiff-Appellant to take all necessary precaution to see that no damage was caused to the said portion and no inconvenience was caused to the Appellant due to the new construction of the building over the portion of the land of the Defendants-Respondents. It is this appellate order, dated 18.12.99, which stands impugned in the present revision.

3. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order. I have heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. A. Sattar, learned Counsel for Respondents.

4. Upon perusal of the materials on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, what attracts my attention, most prominently, is that the Plaintiff-Petitioner has approached this Court with the present revision petition aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 18.12.99, aforementioned, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 3, Guwahati, Kamrup, under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") setting aside the order, dated 17.12.98, aforementioned passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Kamrup, and refusing to grant injunction, as had been sought for by the Plaintiff-Petitioner.

5. Before entering into the merit of the present revision, it needs to be pointed out that a careful reading of the unamended provisions of Section 115 of the Code reveals that an order, which decided a case, but not appealable, could have been interfered with, in revision, if the subordinate Court appeared to have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. This exercise of revisional power was, however, subject to two conditions, which were embodied in Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 115(1), namely, (a) that the order, which is sought to get revised, was such that if the order had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, it would have terminated the suit or the proceeding, or (b) if the order was such that it could cause, if allowed to stand, failure of justice or irreparable loss or injury to the party against whom the order was made.

6. What is, now, of paramount importance to note is that Clause (b) of the proviso to Section115(1) has been deleted