The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revision is maintainable only if the order in favor of the party applying for revision would have given finality to the suit or other proceeding, as emphasized under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court refused to entertain the revision on the ground, firstly, the issue between the parties while rejecting amendment application is not finally decided and the revisionist is not deprived of any legal rights. He also records a finding that whatever revisionist wants to bring on record by way of amendment is already on record in one or the other form. Therefore, he refused to entertain the revision.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. , 2003 (3) AWC 2198 (SC ). Paragraph 32, which is relevant and is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, runs as under :

"32. A plain reading of Section 115, as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is "yes" then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is "no", then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is of interim nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. The legislative intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject-matter of revision under Section 115. There is marked distinction in language of Section 97 (3) of the Old Amendment Act and Section 32 (2) (i) of the Amendment act. While in the former, there was clear legislative intent to save applications admitted or pending before the amendment came into force. Such an intent is significantly absent in Section 32 (2) (i ). The amendment relates to procedures. No person has a vested right in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a statutory change, the mode of procedure is altered the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception unless there is a different stipulation. "

( 3 ) THE provision that has been dealt with in Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. (supra), though deals with the C. P. C. amendment of Maharashtra act but the provision of Maharashtra Act as dealt with by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case is similar to the U. P. amendment brought in by the Code of Civil Procedure (Uttar Pradesh amendment) Ordinance, 2003. (U. P. Ordinance No. 5 of 2003 ). Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Ordinance reads as under :

" (3) The Superior Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where : (i) 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, or the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. "

( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid proposition of law, in my opinion, since finding is already recorded by the revisional court that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, I do not see any illegality or irregularity committed by the revisional court in refusing to entertain the revision.

( 5 ) IN view of the above the writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

.