Hon’ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.—A learned Judge, noticing conflicting judgments of this Court, has been pleased to refer the following question for our consideration :

“Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable against an order issuing a notice to the defendant on an application for a grant of a temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure?”

2. The learned Single Judge, in the referral order, has noted -

(A) Following judgments, holding that a civil revision is not maintainable:

(1) Rajendra Singh and others v. Brij Mohan Agarwal and another, AIR 2003 All. 180.

(2) Debi Das v. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (3) AWC 1921.

(3) Bhagwati Prasad Lohar and others v. State of U.P. through Secretary of Legal Department, Lucknow, U.P. and others, 2005 (60) ALR 512.

(4) Debi Das (deceased) v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (2) ARC 565.

(B) Following judgments, holding that a civil revision is not maintainable after amendment in Section 115 by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003 :

(1) Mohd. Rais Khan v. Shree Naseeb Ullah Khan and others, 2006(4) ADJ 25 (NOC).

(2) Narendra Kumar v. Nagar Nigam, Bareilly and 3 others, 2006(4) ADJ 67.

(3) Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association v. Sri B.C. Jain and others, 2006 (1) ARC 153.

(4) Rajpal Singh v. Richh Pal Singh and others, 2006 (62) ALR 278.

(5) Writ Petition No. 1609 (M/S) of 2006, Cantonment Board Lucknow and another v. District Judge (Incharge) Lucknow and others, decided on 27.4.2006.

(C) Following judgments, holding that a civil revision is maintainable :

(1) Smt. Urmila Devi and others v. Nagar Nigam, Lucknow through Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, 2003 (51) ALR 101.

(2) Smt. Soni v. District Judge, Allahabad and others, 2002 (3) AWC 2469.

(3) Jagdish v. State of U.P., 2003 (Suppl) RD 345.

(D) Following judgments, holding that a civil revision is maintainable after amendment in Section 115 by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003 :

(1) Algu v. Bhola and others, 2006(5) ADJ 585.

(2) Guru Dutt v. Anju Khatri and another, 2004 (55) ALR 327.

(3) Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur v. Gorakhpur Development Authority, Gorakhpur and others, 2004 (4) AWC 3236.

3. To answer the issue, we may first refer to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘C.P.C.’) before its amendment, which read as under :

“115. (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—

(a) 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

(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

(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.

Explanation.—In this section, the expression ‘’any case which has been decided’ includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.”

Section 115, after the amendment in C.P.C., reads as under :

“115. (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 faile