JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. — In the present writ application the petitioner has sought to challenge, an order dated 27.11.2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge Fast Track Court No. IV, Bhubaneswar in CRP No.3/6 of 2004, refusing to exercise revisional jurisdiction, as well as, the order dated 23.4.2005 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge Fast Track Court No. IV, Bhubaneswar rejecting Review Application No. 1/2006.

2. In terms of the impugned order under Annexure-2 dated 27.11.2004 a revision petition was directed against an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, awarding the pendente ¬lite and litigation expenses in favour of the opposite parties passed by Civil Judge Sr. Division, Bhubaneswar.

3. This petition was rejected with a finding that w.e.f. 1.7.2002 the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. This conclusion was reached on a finding that in view of the amendment to Section 115 of the C.P.C. made by Act 46 of 1999 (Central Amendment), the earlier Orissa Act of 1991, vesting jurisdiction in the District Judge stood repealed w.e.f. 1.7.2002. Further, the learned Court in order to reach the aforesaid conclusion, relied upon an al¬leged admission made by the learned counsel for both the parties to the effect that the Orissa Amendment no longer survived after the Central Amendment to Section 115 came into effect.

4. The petitioner filed a Review Application No. 1/2004 against the aforesaid order and the same came to be rejected on 23.4.2005. In the said review petition, the petitioner had relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Simplex Engineer¬ing and Foundary works Ltd. and others v. Bhubaneswar Pattnaik, reported in 2003 (I) OLR 508 and had submitted that, the Hon’ble High Court by interpreting the Article 254 of the Constitution as well as the Section 32 of the Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and on a reading Section 115 of the C.P.C. (after amendment in 1999) as well as the earlier Orissa Amendment Act, 1991 of Section 115, came to hold that, the Orissa Amendment still remained in force but only to the extent it was consistent with the law made by the Parliament. This Hon’ble Court further held that Clause-(ii) to the second proviso below Clause(c) of Section 115 of the Orissa Amendment, i.e.,” the order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made” is no more enforceable, being repugnant to Section 115 as it now stands. It was also indicated therein that the remaining part of Section 115 of the Orissa Amendment (excepting the aforesaid quoted part) shall still be operative being not repugnant to the existing provision of Section 115 of the C.P.C.

5. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is settled by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court, in the case of M/s. Simplex Engineering and Foundry works Ltd. (supra) that the learned District Judge continues to possesses revisional jurisdiction as vested in it, by 1999 Orissa Amendment Act, subject of-course to the extent the Orissa Amendment was not consistent with the Central enactment. In this aspect, Mr. Sa¬rangi drew a comparison between Section 115 as it existed prior to 1999 amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions as enacted prior to amendment and post amendment are noted here¬under:

6. Mr. Sarangi further placed reliance under Section 32 Amendment Act 26 of 1991 is quoted hereunder:

“32. Repeal and savings - (1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except insofar as such amendment or provisions is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed.”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on Civil Procedure (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1991, amend¬ing Section 115, which is quo