The main legal point established is that the revision is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 24 of the Code, as per the amended Section 115(1) and the interpretation of 'other proceeding' as original proceedings under the Code.

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. This civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against order dated 30.05.2018 by which the trial Court has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the civil suit.

2. The arguments with regard to maintainability of this revision against an order passed on an application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure were heard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on decision of Karnataka High Court in M. V. Ganesh Prasad v. Vasudevamurthy and others, AIR 2003 Karnataka 39 submitted that since the proceeding under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an independent proceeding, therefore, the bar contained in Proviso to section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply and the instant revision is maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mushtaq Ahmad Dar v. Mohd. Ishaq Zaroo, AIR 1999 J&K 125 as well as decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rambharose Singh v. Hemlata, 1987 Supreme (MP) 564.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. Before proceeding to deal with the issue of maintainability of this revision, it is apposite to refer to the amended section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code’), which has been amended by Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2009 and it has come into force with effect from 20.03.2009. By the aforesaid amendment, the following changes have been incorporated in Section 115(1) of the Code:-

(a) Following proviso has been substituted in sub-section (1):-

' 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.'

(b) After sub-section (2) but before the Explanation, following sub-section (3) has been inserted, namely;-

' A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit for other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.'

5. The aforesaid proviso curtails the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and restricts the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court while entertaining the revision. The proviso restricts the power of this Court to entertain the revision in the case where the order if made in favour of the party applying for the revision, the suit or 'other proceeding' would have been finally disposed of.

6. There are certain orders which come into existence in the course of hearing of the suit, namely, 'an order refusing/allowing an application for amendment', 'prayer for grant of injunction', 'relief seeking appointment of receiver', 'commission', 'application to file documents', 'application to take up an issue as preliminary issue', 'application seeking addition of an issue and such other ancillary matters'. These orders are precluded from the purview of revisional jurisdiction as ordinarily, in a case of this nature the proceeding in the suit would not be disposed of, even if an order is passed in favour of the party applying for revision.

7. The expression 'other proceeding' is noteworthy, which appears in Proviso to Section 115 of the Code, after the expression 'suit'. The rule of ejusdem generis has to be applied for interpreting the expression 'other proceeding' employed by legislature in Proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code. The aforesaid rule provides that when particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified. (See: Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras,