JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners, by means of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have assailed the impugned order dated 21.7.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Agra in Original Suit No. 609 of 2015, by which the application for amendment of the petitioners-plaintiffs to incorporate certain facts in the plaint has been rejected.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as according to him, a revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. shall lie against the order of trial Court, therefore, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

4. To the aforesaid objection, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that after amendment in Section 115 of C.P.C. in the year 2002, a proviso has been inserted, the perusal of which shows that if the amendment application is allowed, then it amounts to case decided and only then the revision would lie whereas in the instant case, the amendment application has been rejected, therefore, the order impugned does not fall within the ambit of case decided, hence, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.

5. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and others, (2003) 6 SCC 659; Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation v. Baldev Raj Ram Murti, 2002 SCC Online P & H 814 and Uttam Chand Kothari v. Gauri Shankar Jalan and others, (2005) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 147.

6. To rebut the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that rejecting or allowing the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 amounts to disposal of a case decided in a Original Suit and, thus, it being a case decided, the revision against the order impugned is maintainable. Hence, in view of the fact that effective alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is available to the petitioners, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

7. In alternative, he submits that even if, without admitting that the argument of counsel for the petitioners is correct that the order impugned does not fall within the ambit of a case decided, even then the revision would lie, as is evident from sub-section (3) of Section 115 of C.P.C. as applicable in Uttar Pradesh inasmuch as conditions stipulated in sub-section (i) and (ii) of sub-section 3 of Section 115 of C.P. C. are independent, and on existence of any of conditions as enumerated in Section 115 (3) (i) and (ii) of C.P.C., the revision would lie and not the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In such view of the fact, it is submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable.

8. For better appreciation of facts, Section 115 defining revision in the Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced here-in-below :

''(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 proceed