JUDGMENT

P. K.TRIPATHY, J. — An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioners in Money Suit No. 215 of 1993. As against that, petitioners filed an application under Order, 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 87 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela. During the penden¬cy of that Misc. Case, an application filed by the petitioners to stay further proceedings of Execution Case No. 19 of 1999 was rejected by the Court below. As against that, petitioners pre¬ferred C.R.P. No. 39 of 2002 and, this Court on 18.1.2002 dis¬posed of the said revision by directing the Court below to dis¬pose of Misc. Case No. 87 of 2001 within two months. After that, in that Misc. Case petitioners filed an application under Order 26, Rule 1, C.P.C. praying for examination of one of the Directors of the Company as a witness in the said Misc. Case through a Commission on the ground that the said witness is suffering from blood cancer and is unable to attend the Court at Rourkela being residing at Bhilai in the State of Madhya Pradesh. That petition was rejected by the Court below as per the impugned order passed on January 30, 2003. Asserting to the aforesaid facts, petition¬ers seek indulgence of this Court under Section 115 C.P.C.

2. When the case is taken up for admission, being posted with the recent amendment in Section 115 of the C.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the aforesaid amendment does not take away the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order, because the matter which has been considered and disallowed is a proceeding within the meaning of the term so used in Section 115, C.P.C. and there¬fore the revision be admitted and after notice to the opposite party, that be duly considered. In that context, Mr. R. K. Mohan¬ty, learned counsel for the petitioners makes a laborious argu¬ment to canvass the aforesaid contention and to convince this Court relating to the maintainability of the Civil Revision.

3. His argument is that the term ‘proceeding’ having not been clearly defined in the Civil Procedure Code, it should be given a wider meaning as per the ratio in the case of Ram Chandra Aggarwal and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1888. He also refers to the provision in Sec¬tions 94, 141 and 146 of the CPC and states that supplementary matter which enables the Court to effectively adjudicate the original case should also be construed as proceeding.In that context, he argues that interpretation of Section 115 by the Karanatak High Court in the case of K. R. Subba Raju v. Basavi Trading Co.and others, A.I.R. 2002 Karnataka 407 is not consist¬ent with the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra (supra).

4. Section 115, C.P.C. as it stands now, reads as here- under :

“115. 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 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 pro¬ceedings.

(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