spb/- 1 cra534-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 534 OF 2010 Yashwant Sahakari Bank Ltd. Miraj ... Applicant. (Org.Defendant) V/s. Chand Fruit Company ... Respondent. (Org.Plaintiff) --- Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the Petitioner. Mr. R.M. Momin for Respondent. --- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 20th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 17th March, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sangli, rejecting the applicant’s application at Exh. 14 for framing of a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit. Provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under : 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 spb/- 2 cra534-10.sxw (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: [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.] [(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto [(3) A 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.] Explanation,-- In this section, the expression ,”any case which has been decided” includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.] 2 Under the provisions of section 115, the revision application would be maintainable only if the order impugned if passed in favour of the party filing the revision would be terminating the proceeding. In the spb/- 3 cra534-10.sxw present case, if the impugned order were to be passed in favour of the petitioner i.e. if the application were to be decided in favour of the plaintiff only a preliminary issue would have been framed and that would not terminate the suit or the proceeding. As such the revision application is not maintainable. 3 Revision Application is rejected as not maintainable. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]