1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No. 91/2008 (Subhash Dadaji Panchal & another VERSUS Indirabai wd/o DAdaji Panchal) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.S. Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Apurv De, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 6, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Shri Apurv De, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the civil revision application by relying on the judgment reported in AIR 2005 SC 226. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that with the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the exparte decree was also impliedly dismissed. In view of the aforesaid position, the appeal was maintainable against the 2 impugned order passed by the trial Court on 28.08.2008 in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the revision- applicant asserted that the revision application is maintainable and relied on judgments reported in AIR 1977 SC 397, AIR 1964 SC 497 and 2003 A.I.H.C. 4225 to substantiate his submission that a revision application is maintainable where no appeal is provided to the High Court. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that in the instant case, the appeal against order would not lie against the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) before the High Court and, hence, in view of the aforesaid reported decisions, the civil revision application is maintainable. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The judgment reported in AIR 2005 SC 226 clearly applies to the facts of this 3 case and the civil revision application would not be maintainable. The judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and relied on by the counsel for the revision-applicant, would not be applicable to the facts of the case as they are based on the unamended provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per the amended provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court shall not vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. In view of the provisions of Sub Section 2 of Section 115 as amended with effect from 01.02.1977, it is clear that the judgments, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and relied on by the counsel for the revision-applicant, would not be made applicable to the facts of the case. The civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable with no order as to costs. 4 The applicant is, however, granted liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy available in law. JUDGE APTE