Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the respective parties and with their consent I proceed to decide the revision finally at the stage of admission itself.

2. This revision under Section 115 CPC has been preferred against the order dated 29.8.2014 passed by the Court of first instance in Original Suit No. 344 of 2012 by which the application of the revisionists paper No. 45 C for framing additional issue No. 10 in the suit has been rejected.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 instituted the aforesaid original suit against the defendant revisionists and one Chandra Shekhar Agrawal for recovery of Rs. 7,81,500/- on the allegation that they have borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,15,000/- from him but has not returned the same which is liable to be refunded with 18% interest. It was also alleged that the aforesaid amount after borrowing was deposited in the bank account of the company BLSM Hotel and Resorts Private Limited.

4. In the said suit several issues were framed and some of the issues including issue No. 8 relating to jurisdiction of the Civil Court were decided on 9.12.2013 as preliminary issues holding that the suit is cognizable by the Civil Court.

5. Subsequently, defendant revisionists applied for amendment of the written statement which was allowed to be amended vide order dated 7.8.2014. The amendment permitted the defendant revisionists to plead that the suit is barred by Section 10 (g) (b) and 133 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

6. After the said amendment defendant revisionists moved application 45 C for framing an additional issue that the suit is not maintainable and is barred by Section 10 (g) ((b) and 133 (2) of the Act.

7. The application was opposed on the ground that the issue of jurisdiction had already been decided on 9.12.2013 and therefore there is no necessity of framing any additional issue to the above effect.

8. The Court below by the impugned order has rejected the application holding that the issue regarding jurisdiction had already been decided which has attained finality. Therefore, there is necessity to formulate an issue on the above aspect at this stage.

9. In challenging the above order it has been submitted that the issue of jurisdiction was different from the issue that the suit is barred by Section 10 (g) (b) and 133 (2) of the Act proposed to be framed. Secondly, the order dated 9.12.2013deciding issue No. 8 of jurisdiction would not come in the way of framing additional issue, in as much as, the said issue framed and decided was on the basis of the then existing pleadings whereas the position has changed with the amendment of the written statement.

10. The revision has been opposed on the preliminary point that it is not maintainable. On merits it is contended that the issue proposed to be framed is virtually of no use, as Section 10 (g) (b) of the Act has not come into operation as no notification constituting a National Company Law Tribunal has been issued, the issue of jurisdiction has already been decided and the framing of issue on the above aspect would amount to giving second inning to the defendant revisionists to contest on the same issue which had been decided.

11. I first deal with the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the revision.

12. An order passed in a suit is revisable by virtue of Section 115 CPC which in its applicability to the State of U.P. reads as under :

“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) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or

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

(2) A revision application under