( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the question of maintainability of this Civil Revision (No. 1041 of 1984) as well as Civil Revision Nos. 1043/84, 837/84, 28/84, 924/84, 895/84, 925/84, 1033/84, 1037/84, 965/84, 1036/84 and 10/85, filed after 14-8-1984 arising out of orders passed by the Judges of Courts of District Judge in Miscellaneous Civil Appeals preferred from appealable orders passed by the Courts of Civil Judge, Class I and Class II in suits of valuation of less than Rs. 20,000/ -. It shall also govern C. R. No. 990/84 in which an appellate decree in which no second appeal lies in view of Sections 96 (4) and 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sought to be revised.

( 2 ) THE counsel have been heard on admission of these civil revision petitions in which the point mooted was whether these revision petitions (filed in the High Court after 14-8-1984) are maintainable in the wake of the amendment brought about in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the Code of Civil Procedure (M. P. Amendment) Act 84 (No. 29 of 84), which came into force on 14-8-84. The relevant portion of amended provision runs as follows : - the High Court in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, and the District Judge in any other case may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court or Distt. Judge as the case may be 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 or the Distt. Judge as the case may be make such order in the case as it thinks fit. Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suit or other proceedings of any valuation decided by the Distt. Judge the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section. "

( 3 ) ON a reference made by me, a Division Bench of this Court in C. R. No. 942/84 (G) (reported in 1985 Cur Civ LJ 91), Gayaprasad v. Deepchand, held on 14-11-1984 its opinion as follows :". . . . . . . . . . IN case of an order passed either before 14-8-1984 or after 14-8-84 in an original suit or other proceedings of the value of less than Rs. 20,000/- instituted before 14-8-1984, by any of the Courts of subordinate Judges, i. e. other than the Court of the District Judge, a revision petition under Section 115, as amended, of the Code of Civil Procedure, after 14-8-1984 shall lie to the District Judge and not to the High Court. "it is, therefore, now settled law that in respect of the orders of the aforementioned category, the District Judge has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain revisions u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' (as amended by the M. P. Act No. 29/84) with effect from 14-8-1984. Thus, the petitioners before me cannot contend that inasmuch as the impugned orders were passed in Civil Appeals filed before 14-8-1984 the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the revision petitions notwithstanding the amendment brought about by the M. P. Act. No. 29/84 in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the present revision petition has, therefore, to be determined with reference to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the M. P. Act No. 29/84.

( 4 ) ALL these revisions are directed against orders passed by the Judges or Additional Judges to the various Courts of District Judges in Civil Appeals arising out of orders passed by Civil Judges Class I, Class II in Civil suits of less than Rs. 20,000/- in valuation. Hence, the point for determination before me involves a consideration of the question whether the impugned orders passed in Civil Appeals can be regarded as orders passed in "other proceedings