HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. 144/2008 APPLICANT 1. Shobha Ram S/o Shri Mahadeo DEFENDANT Sac, aged about 7‘2 years, R/o Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) Versus Jaiprakash Gupta, S/o Sri Sita Ram Gupta, aged about 48 years, R/o Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja 2. Birkeshwar Prasad Gupta, S/o. Late Sri Sita Ram Gupta, aged about 45 years, R/o Sitapur, , Distt. Sarguja (CG) 3. Deokaran Prasad Gupta, S/o Sri Late Sita Ram Gupta, aged about 42 years, R/o Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) Kailash Gupta, ,S/o Sri Sitaram Gupta, aged about 4O years, R/o Sitapm‘, Distt. Sarguja I Ram Pratap Gupta, S/o Sitaram Gupta, aged about 35 years, R/o Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja Ganesh Prasad, S/o Shri Shyamjeet aged about 30 years, R/o Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 7. Kn'shna Prasad, S/o Sri Shyamjeet, aged about 26 years, R/o Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja Rajesh Prasad S/o Sri Shyamjeet aged about 24 years, R/o. Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 9. Manobai, W/o. Shri Shyamjeet Sao, aged about 50 years, R/o Sitapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 10. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Sarguja (CG) SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT :— Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Adv. for the applicant. Shri P.K. Verma, Sr. Adv. with Shri Sumeet Verma, Adv. for the respondents No. 1 to 5. Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer, for the State. None for the respondents No. 6 to 8 though served. NON-APPLICANTS OI o RAL 0 R D E R (18—3—2010) Per N.K. Agarwal, J . 1. Heard on maintainability of the revision in View of Section 1'15 or the c.P.c. ¢¥vi 2 2; Instant revision is directed against th€ order dated 6-2—2003 ‘ passed in Civil Appeal No. ’7—A/2002 by W11 Additional District Judge (FTC), Sarguja whereby and Whereunder, the application prefeITed by the appellant for Withdrawal 0f the suit with permission to file afresh has been allowed‘ 3. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugled order is revisable. 4. On the other hand, Shri PK. Verma, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 5 submits that if the revision is allowed, then it will not dispose of the appeal finally, rather it will revive the appeal. Therefore, the revision is not maintainable in view of the amended provision contained in Section 1 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 01 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order impugned, it is crystal clear that if the instant revision is allowed, then it will not dispose of the appeal, rather it will revive the appeal. 6. Proviso to section 1 15 of CPC reads as under: ~ “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 proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.” . As per amended provision of Section l 15 of C.P.C., 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 proceeding, except Where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would haVe finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. 8. In view of the above, the revision being not maintainable deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. y