Requirement of revisional jurisdiction in all interlocutory matters.

The aforesaid Revision was filed on 25.7.2002 against the order dated 8.7.2002 in I.A.No.160 of 2002 in O.S.No.3 of 2001, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, rejecting the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party.

2. The suit was filed by the present respondent No.1 against the respondents 2 & 3 for a direction to the defendants not to restrain the plaintiff from taking part in the General Body Meeting of the Pandiyan Educational Trust and for directing them to convene the General Body of the Pandiyan Trust. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, the present petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C for being impleaded as third defendant in the suit. Such application was resisted by all the parties to the suit and ultimately rejected by the trial court by order dated 8.7.2002.

3. Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been recently amended. The relevant provision as contained in Section 115(1) is extracted hereunder :-

“ Section 115 (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 in 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 irregularly, 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 order 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 proceeding.

4. While the main provision in Section 115(1) has remained unaltered, the proviso has undergone significant change. Before amendment, the provisos which was for the first time incorporated in 1976 were as follows :

“ 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 order 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.”

5. A comparison of the proviso before 1999 amendment and after 1999 amendment makes it clear that clause(b) of the proviso has been deleted and clause (a) of the proviso has been included as part of the proviso.

6. A bare reading of the aforesaid proviso after 1999 amendment makes it clear that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order 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 proceeding.

7. The intention of the Legislature seems to exclude the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in all Interlocutary matters, which, though may have an ultimate bearing in the suit, would not have brought the suit or other proceeding to an end.

8. The above position is now clear in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Shivshakthi cooperative Society, Nagpur Vs. M/s.Swaraj Developers(2003(2) CTC 564)

9. In the present case, if the application under Order I Rule 10 would have been allowed, such order would not have brought the suit to an end. The question then arises if application under Order I Rule 10 is to be considered as a “proceeding” and in such event, the application if allowed, would have brought such proceeding to an end.

10. The expression “proceeding” has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, keeping in view the intention of the Legislature reflected in the amendment made in the year 1976 and subsequently made in 1999, it is obvious that the Le