Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the revisional Court dated 3rd September, 2005 whereby a revision filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 2 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (In short ‘C.P.C.’), as amended in the State of U.P., has been allowed and an application 7-C moved by the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 in this writ petition, for grant of temporary injunction was also allowed and temporary injunction was granted by the revisional Court till the decision of the suit.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 in this writ petition, filed a suit before the trial Court before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gorakhpur being Suit No. 350 of 2004. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2, C.P.C., numbered as 7-C for grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 was presented before the trial Court on 22nd July, 2004 and on 22nd July, 2004 the trial Court passed an order of registering the suit and on application 7-C filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 the trial Court directed that considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is necessary to hear the defendant before passing any order on injunction application, therefore fixed 22nd July. 2004. The plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 22nd July, 2004 whereby notice were issued by the trial Court on the application 7-C, filed a revision before the revisional Court under Section 115 of C.P.C. The revision was heard and decided by the revisional Court and revisional Court by the order dated 3rd September, 2005 allowed the revision filed by the plaintiff-respondent set aside the order dated 22nd July, 2004 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court issued notices to the defendant on the application 7-C and application 7-C was accepted, temporary injunction prayed for is granted by the revisional Court which directed that during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court the defendant cannot sell the property referred in the contract to anyone other than plaintiff or his nominee. It further directed the parties to appear on 10th October, 2005. It is this order which is under challenge here in this writ petition

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the amended provisions of Section 115 of the C.P.C. as amended in the State of U.P. by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003 which are reproduced below, no revision lies against the order passed by the trial Court :

“115. Revision.—(1) A superior Court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate Court where no appeal lies against the order and where the subordinate Court has—

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or

(b) fails to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or

(c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

(2) A revision application under sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a certificate on the first page of such application, below the title of the case, to the effect that no revision in the case lies to the district Court but lies only to the High Court either because of valuation or because the order sought to be revised was passed by the district Court.

(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 proceeding; or

(ii) 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) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the superio