1. Heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondent. The impugned order of the trial court and other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

2. This is a revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dismissing an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 29.01.2010 made in O.S.No.36/2009 on the file of Sub Court, Sankari.

3. A Preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure relying on the proviso to sub-Section (1), which reads 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 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.”

4. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent was that in case a decision in the Section 5 application (I.A.No.213/2011) had been in favour of the petitioner herein, it would not have resulted in the termination of the proceedings in O.S.No.36/2009 on the file of trial court and on the other hand, it would have paved the way for the revival of the said suit itself, subject to the result of the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that hence the revision was not maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of the above said contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyodaya Trust and Others Vs. Mohan Prasad R and Others reported in (2006) 7 SCC 452. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment reads as follows:

"9. The amendment to Section 115 CPC is based on the recommendations made by the Malimath Committee. The said Committee was of the opinion that the expression employed in Section 115 CPC which enables interference in revision on the ground that the order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the parties against whom it was made, left open wide scope for exercise of powers with all types of interlocutory orders and this was substantially contributing towards delay in the disposal of cases. The Committee did not favour denuding the High Court of the power of revision, but strongly felt that the powers should be suitably curtailed. The effect of the erstwhile clause (b) of the proviso was deleted and a new proviso has been inserted so that the revisional jurisdiction is substantially curtailed. A revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised unless the requirement of the proviso is satisfied. It is thus clear that the proviso creates an embargo in exercise of revisional power."

5. The law in this regard has been clearly stated in the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 115 of CPC and the same has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment holding that the High Court cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect an order, if the order would not have resulted in the disposal of the lis itself, had the decision been in favour of the party seeking revision. Hence, this court does have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the present revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable.

6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the restriction provided under Section 115 sub clause (1) proviso shall not be a bar for entertaining a revision in exercise of the power of superintendence of the High Courts over the Subordinate Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and tha