Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In Civil Revision Nos. 219 of 2001, 192 of 2002, 245 of 2002 and 420 of 2002, the orders impugned are the rejection of applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of pleadings, whereas in Civil Revision No. 448 by the order impugned, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was allowed. Similarly, in Civil Revision No. 263 of 2002 by the impugned order the application under Order 18 Rule 2 CPC was allowed and defendants No. 2 and 3 were permitted to adduce evidence to controvert the evidence of defendant No. 1 and in Civil Revision No. 335 of 2002 the order under challenge is the dismissal of application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues.

2. In all these revision petitions preliminary objection of maintainability has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents that firstly the impugned orders are not the orders which fall within the zone of case decided as envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 115 and secondly in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115, the impugned orders are not liable to be varied or reversed as had these orders been made in favour of the petitioners who have applied for revision, the suit or the proceedings would not have been finally disposed of. According to the learned Counsel, the word "proceedings" used in proviso does not pertain to the proceedings in the suit. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the civil revisions are maintainable as these are against the impugned orders whereby some legally enforceable claim or right of the party aggrieved, has been decided and these orders must fall within the realm of "case decided". They have also submitted that in the proviso the word proceedings denotes the proceedings in the suit and not independent of the suit.

4. Since the words "case decided" is no longer res Integra, this Court would refer to the case law interpreting these words. It is also to be examined whether the words "other proceedings" used in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115 mean the proceedings in the suit or the proceedings otherwise than suit or the proceedings before other Tribunals. Section 115 is as under: "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 proceedings, 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."

5. This section as originally enacted empowered the High Courts with revisional jurisdiction over subordinate Courts in case of failure to exercise jurisdiction, exercise of jurisdiction not vested by law as well as exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The original Section 115 was only the present sub-section (1) and by