Hon’ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition, while challenging the order of the revisional Court dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure 5), involves decision upon a precise question whether a revision against an order issuing show cause notice to the defendant by the trial Court on an application seeking temporary injunction by the plaintiff is maintainable in the light of the State Amendment as incorporated in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ‘C.P.C.’) by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003.

3. For a brief factual background of this case it may be stated that the petitioner plaintiff filed a suit (O.S. No. 503 of 2004) in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) seeking relief of permanent injunction against the respondents defendants restraining them from interfering in plaintiffs’ possession over the disputed land of plot No. 45 shown by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map. Along with this suit the petitioner also filed an interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. to restrain the respondents from interfering into his possession over the land in question till disposal of the suit. The trial Court upon hearing the plaintiffs’ Counsel and on perusal of the materials available before it, passed the order dated 16.8.2004 as stated in Para-10 of the petition and directed for issuance of show cause notice to the defendants respondents fixing a date for objection and disposal of the temporary injunction matter. Aggrieved against this order of the trial Court the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge under Section 115, C.P.C., which has been dismissed by the impugned order (Annexure 5).

4. The revisional Court while dismissing the revision has also held that such revision was not competent in the light of the case law of Raj Pal v. Richh Pal Singh and others, 2006 (62) ALR 278.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while urging for the petition has very strenuously hammered the point that though several pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in reference to the cases pertaining to other States, a revision against such an order of the trial Court directing issue of notice on an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. may not be competent in view of the amended provision of Section 115, C.P.C. but such case law, if duly appreciated in the light of existing provision of Section 115, C.P.C. as amended by the U.P. State amendment (U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003), it shall not be treated as a precedent by the Courts of this State because the legal proposition of the apex Court in this regard has been propounded in ignorance of such amended provision of Section 115, C.P.C. as applicable in this State of U.P. Learned Counsel has further tried to stress on the point that the case law of Raj Pal (supra) referred to in the judgment of the revisional Court also does not discuss the existing provision of Section 115 C.P.C. as applicable in the present case. Learned Counsel has further made an endeavour to distinguish the judgment of mine dated 1.2.2006 delivered in writ petition No. 6432 of 2006, Mohd. Rais Khan v. Shri Naseeb Ullah Khan and others, 2006 (2) ALJ 790, which has also discussed the U.P. Amendment in a context that a revision against such an order issuing notice by the trial Court, is not competent. It would be quite relevant for the purpose to have a detailed appreciation of the provision pre and post C.P.C. (Amendment) Act 1999 of Section 115 C.P.C. For that purpose the provisions in chronological order as appear in the statute book are quoted below. Before subjecting to its first amendment in 1976 by virtue of Section 97 (3) of C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, the Section 115 in its original note was as below :

“Section 115 C.P.C. 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