The main legal point established is that the amended proviso of Section 115 restricted the scope of civil revisions to orders finally disposing of the suit or other proceedings, and it applied to pending cases as well.

( 1 ) THE applicant has filed this Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the interlocutory order dated 3-8-1999 passed in Civil Suit No. 58-A/95 by the Civil Judge, Class II, Bhikangaon, whereby the trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff, I. A. No. 6 under Order XIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I. A. No. 7 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.

( 2 ) THIS civil revision was filed on 27-9-1999 and by order dated 23-2-2000 notices were directed to be issued and the proceedings of the trial Court were stayed. This civil revision came up for hearing on 1-7-2002. On the same day the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (No. 46 of 1999) also came into force by notification dated 6th June, 2002. By Section 12 of this amendment of 1999 (No. 46 of 1999) in Section 115 of the Principal Act, the "proviso" of sub-section (1) has been substituted.

( 3 ) AFTER the enforcement of the amendment w. e. f. 1-7-2002 when this revision came up for hearing the learned counsel for Respondents raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of civil revision after the amendment and it was submitted that this amendment of 1999 will also apply on pending cases and pending cases have to be decided as per the amended proviso of Section 115 which has been substituted.

( 4 ) AS many other civil revision petitions were listed for hearing the learned Members of the Bar submitted that the question about the application of the amended proviso on the pending civil revisions be decided first. All the Members were anxious to address the Court on this question which was a matter of general importance.

( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY a general notice was issued to all the Members of the Bar to appear and to address the Court on this question of maintainability and scope of civil revisions and its effect on pending cases after amendment be decided.

( 6 ) I have heard Shri T. N. Singh, learned Counsel for applicant; Shri K. C. Gangrade, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1; and Shri Z. A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent No. 3/state. I have also heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, Shri P. K. Saxena, Shri B. L. Pavecha, Shri S. C. Bagdiya, Shri Shekhar Bhargava, Shri D. D. Vyas, Shri Y. I, Mehta, Shri A. S. Garg, learned Senior Advocates and Shri S. R. Sarar, Shri S. K. Bahel, Shri V. K. Jain, Shri A. P. Polekar and Shri Piyush Mathur, leaned counsel.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel mainly submitted their submissions on two questions, namely:- (1) Whether the amended provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which came into force w. e. f. 1-7-2002 are applicable on pending cases ? (2) After the amendment what is the scope of revisions whether revisions are maintainable against all interlocutory orders or against the restricted orders as has been defined in the newly substituted proviso ?

( 8 ) SHRI G. M. Chaphekar, Shri S. C. Bagdiya, Shri B. L. Pavecha, Shri D. D. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate; Shri -. A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, Shri T. N. Sinh and Shri S. R. Saraf, learned Counsel submitted that the amending proviso is very clear according to which the scope of civil revisions has now become quite limited and restricted and now the amended provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall also apply on the pending civil revisions and in support of their submissions they relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Jagannath v. Dattatraya Shankarrao reported in 1986 MPLJ 406. Shri Chaphekar further submitted that revisional jurisdiction is not available as a matter of right and relied on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Memon Abdul Karim Haji Tayab, Central Cutlery Stores, Veraval v. Deputy Custodian-General, New Delhi reported in AIR 1964 SC 1256.

( 9 ) SHRI A. P. Polekar, learned Counsel also submitted that the revision is not a vested right and change in the procedural law would apply on t