The amendment to S.115 CPC restricts the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to cases where the order would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding.

1. Learned Single Judge taking note of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this High Court in case of R.S. Bajwa and Co. v. State of Chhattisgarh , reported in 2013 (II) MP JR96 : (AIR 2013 (NOC) 176 (CHH)), has referred following question for determination by a Larger Bench; -
"Whether proviso to S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , as substituted by Act 46 of 1999, bars revision, if the proceedings revive instead being finally disposed off?

2. Before we proceed to deal with the question referred, we think it proper to narrate the facts of civil revision as also arguments advanced by learned counsel for respective parties, giving rise to the reference in question.

3. Some dispute arose out of an agreement entered between the petitioner and respondents which was referred to the Sole Arbitrator, who, in turn, passed the award dated 27.10.2014. Petitioners filed an application under S.36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') read with O.21 R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') before the District Judge, Bilaspur for execution / enforcement of award. In an execution proceeding, respondents have submitted an application under O.7 R.11 CPC seeking dismissal of execution proceedings. Learned District Judge while considering application under O.7 R.11 CPC, arrived at a conclusion that subject - matter of execution proceeding falls within the category of 'commercial dispute1, as provided under S.2 (c) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisionand Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and accordingly, returned back execution application filed under S.36 of the Act of 1996 for filing it before appropriate jurisdictional commercial Court. Aggrieved therewith, petitioners have preferred civil revision under S.115 of the Code before the High Court.

4. During the course of arguments before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for respondents relied upon decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Others , reported in 1982 (1) SCC 525 : (AIR 1982 SC 818) and Shiv Shakti Co - operative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers and Others, reported in 2003 (6) SCC 659 : (AIR 2003 SC 2434), to object maintainability of civil revision against the order of learned District Judge returning execution application for its presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of R.S. Bajwa (supra) to submit that the order impugned in civil revision is revisable under S.115 of CPC and as such, civil revision is rightly filed.

6. Learned Single Judge taking note of the proviso to S.115 of CPC as also decision in case of Shiv Shakti Co - operative (supra) and Babu Lal (supra) concluded that decision in case of RS Bajwa (supra) needs reconsideration by a Larger Bench and therefore, referred the matter to a Larger Bench by formulating above quoted question.

7. In the above factual backdrop of case, we find it appropriate to extract provisions of S.115 of CPC herein below for ready reference: -
"115. Revision - (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 jurisdicti