Orders passed by appellate or revisional courts, whether interim or final, are not open to revision by the High Court under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, if the valuation of the suit is less than Rs. 20,000.

T.N. Singh, J.

1. In this Reference, we are required by the learned Single Judge to answer the following two questions framed by him:

"(1) Whether in view of amendment in section 115, Civil Procedure Code, made by M.P. Act No. 29/84 an interim order passed by an appellate or revisional Court not finally disposing of the proceedings is open to revision by High Court?

(2) Whether the law contemplates anything like an 'original order' passed by a superior Court in a pending appeal or revision as distinguished from an appellate or revisional order?"

2. Indeed, the learned Judge (R. C. Lahoti, J.) was confronted with the question of maintainability of revision and decisions were cited before him by both sides. He found conflicting views expressed by this Court in the decisions cited and felt compelled to make a Reference. As regards facts, suffice to say this much for the purpose of disposal of this Reference that in the revision, an order passed by learned Additional District Judge under Order 41, Rule 3A, Civil Procedure Code was challenged. By that order, the Court below had allowed the application of the defendant/appellant made under section 5, Limitation Act; and delay in filing the appeal was condoned. Evidently, that appeal is awaiting final decision on merits.

3. Section 115, Civil Procedure Code has been amended locally by M.P. Act No. 29 of 1984. Indeed, the following provision has been substituted in its place:

"115. Revision. 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 District 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 District 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 suits or other proceedings of any valuation, decided by the District Judge, the High Court alone shall be competent- to make an order under this section:

Provided further that the High Court or the District Judge shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where, -

(i) The order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or

(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

Explanation - In this section, the expression 'any case which has been decided' includes any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding."

Be it mentioned immediately that a similar local amendment of section 115 has been brought about in the neighbouring State of Uttar Pradesh and both provisions are substantially in pari materia. We have noticed that position as Apex Court had two occasions to deal with that provision in Vishesh Kumar's case, AIR 1980 SC 892 and Sri Vishnu Awatar's case, AIR 1980 SC 1575.

4. We would also like to observe even at this stage, that in the order of Reference, three reported decisions are mentioned, but there are other decisions also of this Court which have a signal bearing on the controversy. Learned Judge has referred to Govindram's case, 1988 JLJ 235, Ramesh Chandra Sharma's case, 1989 MPLJ-746 = 1989 MPJR HC 829 and Manbhawati's case, 1986 (1) MPWN 219. He has also referred to an unreported decision. Recently, however, at this Bench, in the case of Bhanu Prakash Agrawal's case, 1990 MPJR 16, in a Letters Patent Appeal, the decision in Govindram was examined. This Court's Full Bench decision in R