Anil Kumar,J.: -

Heard Sri P.R. Gupta, learned counsel for revisionist and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that a SCC Suit No. 3 of 2005 has been filed pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hardoi.

3. In the said matter initially on behalf of the revisionist an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, rejected. Subsequently, again an application under Section 151 CPC along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been moved for recall of the order dated 13.09.2011 by which the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been rejected(registered as Paper No. 112Ga/1), dismissed by order dated 27.03.2012.

4. Aggrieved by the said facts, present revision has been filed by revisionist/Mohd Murtaza @ Pahari under Section 115 C.P.C.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the revisionist and going through the record, the first and foremost question which is to be decided in the present case is that against the issuing of notice, whether the present revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is maintainable or not.

6. U.P. Ordinance No. 25 of 2003 and 26 of 2003 by which second proviso has been added of Sub section 3