IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2081 of 2007 Jagdish Prasad Chouhan s/o late Ram Lakhan Prasad Chouhan, r/o Mohall – Bheriarahika, P.O.- B.M.P.7, Police Station – Katihar (Mufassil), District – Katihar, presently posted as Additional Collector, Aurangabad (Bihar) …….Opp. Party/Petitioner Versus 1. Bhuneshwar Chouhan s/o Sri Kuldeo Chouhan, r/o village Bathna, Gadhia Baluwa, P.S. K. Nagar (Sri Nagar), District – Purnea 2. Sunita Chouhan, d/o Ramanand Mandal, r/o village – Koshkapur Jharkaha, Police Station – Narpatganj, District – Araria, presently residing at C/o Ganesh Prasad Chouhan Mohalla – Bheriarahika Ward no.2 P.O.B.M.P.7, P.S. Katihar (Mufassil) District – Katihar ………………Petitioner/Opp. Parties ----- For the petitioner: Mr.Bindhyachal Singh, Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocates For the Opp. Party No. 1: Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha, Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocates --- 7 13/8/2009 Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, counsel for the opposite party no.1. The matter has been listed for considering the maintainability of revision application. The petitioner, who was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Family Court, has filed this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil 2 Procedure challenging the order dated 10.8.2007 of the Family Court, whereunder the said petitioner has been impleaded as a second respondent and certain allegations have also been incorporated by way of amendment. The office note points out that revision is not maintainable in view of the provision of Section 19(5) of the Family Courts Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order passed by the Family Court is an interlocutory order, it is not appeable under Section 19(1) and, therefore, a revision will be maintainable. However, in view of the specific bar contained in Section 19(5), such revision also would not be maintainable. Moreover, if assuming that Section 115 would be applicable but , particularly, in view of the proviso to Section 115, no revision against an interlocutory order would be maintainable. Therefore, this revision is dismissed as not maintainable. It is made clear that if ultimately the present petitioner is aggrieved by the final order then he 3 can take up all the grounds of objection in appeal as contemplated in Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Neyaz/ ( P. K. Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)