THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.79 of 2010 Dated:05.02.2010 Between: Polisetti Bhanumathi. …Petitioner and Vegasina Venkata Krishnam Raju. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.79 of 2010 ORDER: This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is against the order of the Court of the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, dated 03.12.2009, in I.A.No.200 of 2009 in A.S.No.41 of 2000. The petitioner filed O.S.No.12 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, for declaration of title and recovery of plaint B schedule property. The suit was decreed on 21.06.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant (respondent herein) filed A.S.No.41 of 2000 before the lower appellate Court. When the same was pending, I.A.No.200 of 2009 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of certain averments/allegations in the plaint as well as in the plaint plan. Originally in paragraph 7 of the plaint he described the suit property as “about 6 inches on the North about 3 yards on the South”. But, by amendment the petitioner wanted to change it as “about 7 feet on the North about 4 feet on the South”. In the plaint plan also necessary changes were sought to be made. The same was opposed. After considering the application, the Court below dismissed the Interlocutory Application by the impugned order. The Court below considered the question whether the petitioner is entitled to seek amendment to the prayer. Having regard to the nature of the suit and the relief sought the Court below observed as under. …This petition is filed to amend the schedule of measurements as noted by the Commissioner before the Lower Court. Therefore, the proposed amendment will certainly change the nature of the case and if amendment is allowed ever prejudice will be caused to the defendant. Simply because Advocate for the plaintiff changed on record and alleges that after going through record, he found the mistake cannot be a ground to seek amendment of the plaint of the measurements of the schedule property. The proposed amendment will certainly change the nature of the case and to decide by the Court to come to conclusion for the just decision of the case. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merits. The reasoning of the learned Judge is unassailable. Secondly, the Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC. After amendment by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 115 was substituted. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and is not maintainable. It is now well settled that unless and until the person moving this Court under Section 115 CPC is able to show that the disposal of such application by the trial Court would have resulted in the final disposal of the suit, no Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC would lie. A reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/S. Swaraj Developers[1] wherein it was laid down: Sub-section (2) of Section 115 CPC has remained unaltered even after the amendment by the Amendment Act. A new sub-sec.(3) has been added in Section 115 by the Amendment Act which states that revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court……… A plain reading of Section 115 as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is ‘yes’ then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is ‘no’ then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is of interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. The legislative intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115. There is marked distinction in language of Section 97(3) of the Old Amendment Act and Section 32(2)(i) of the Amendment Act. While in the former, there was clear legislative intent to save applications admitted or pending before the amendment came into force, such an intent is significantly absent in Section 32(2)(i). The amendment relates to procedures. No person has a vested right in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a statutory change the mode of procedure is altered the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception, unless there is a different stipulation. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act has no application because there is no substantive vested right available to a party seeking revision under Section 115 of the Code. In view of the binding dicta of the Apex Court, the Civil Revision Petition itself is misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 05.02.2010 vs [1] 2003 AIR SCW 2445 = 2003 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 392 =2003 (3) Supreme 729 = AIR 2003 SC 2434