Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, returning the plaint of a suit directing compliance of statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the respondents-State and public officials, and its re-presentation two months after issuing such notice.

2. Substratum of the facts giving rise to the revision is not in dispute, and so much so, particulars which are necessary for considering the challenges raised against the impugned order need alone be adverted to. Petitioner is the Trivandrum Golf Club, represented by its Secretary, against which proceedings have been initiated by the Government for terminating the licence arrangement with the Club and to resume the land under its possession. After issuing show cause notice alleging violation of the conditions of the licence and hearing the petitioner Club the Government have passed an order terminating the licence agreement with direction to the District Collector to resume possession of the land under the enjoyment of the Club after giving one month's time to vacate from the premises. Annexure 4 is the copy of the proceedings passed by the Government for terminating the licence to the Club with directions as aforesaid. Club, the revision petitioner, laid a suit before the Principal Sub Court for declaration and consequential reliefs imputing Annexure 4 proceedings. With the suit, an application, I.A.No.9540 of 2009, was also moved seeking leave under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to dispense with the statutory notice contemplated under the above Section for instituting a suit against the State and public officials. Learned Principal Sub Judge, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner Club and also the learned Government Pleader, declined the request for leave under the impugned order and returned the plaint with direction for its re-presentation after complying with the statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. I heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.Krishnan Unni who appeared for the revision petitioner and also the learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Renjith Thampan who appeared for the respondents.

4. Maintainability of the revision against the impugned order was challenged by the learned Additional Advocate General banking upon the proviso to sub section (I) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that there was no final disposal of a suit or proceeding under the impugned order, but, only a direction for compliance of the statutory requirement of issuing a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and for re-presentation of the plaint two months after issuing such notice. Reliance was placed on Shiv Shakthi Co-operative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers [2003(2) KLT 503 (SC)] by the learned Additional Advocate General to contend that the impact of the proviso to sub section (I) of Section 115 of the Code makes it abundantly clear that the bar of entertaining a revision is based on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding.

5. To appreciate the objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General challenging the maintainability of the revision against the impugned order reference to the above proviso is called for. Proviso to sub section (1) of Section 115 of the Code reads thus:

"(Provided that the High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding a 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 a final disposed of the suit or other proceedings.)"

That proviso has to be read subject to the supervisory revisional jurisdiction conferred on this court to correct the jurisdictional infirmities in the orders of the subordinate courts in respect of any case which has be