IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 425 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- THAKORE KADVAJI SADAJI Versus GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Civil Revision Application No. 425 of 1997 MR SANJAY M AMIN for Petitioner No. 1 MR PK PANCHOLI for Respondent No. 1 MR BG JANI for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT Date of decision: 20/11/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT #. This is a Revision Application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) [as amended in 1976]. The present petitioner as plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 123/96 against the opponents-defendants for various reliefs including the relief that the first respondent Board should not disconnect the electric supply to the plaintiff. In the said suit, the applicant plaintiff had given an application at Exh. 5 for an interim injunction restraining the 1st opponent-1st defendant from disconnecting the electric supply to the plaintiff on the basis of an application given by opponent No.2-defendant No.2. The trial Court rejected the said application by its speaking order, on the basis of the evidentiary material on record. The applicant-plaintiff thereupon preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 before the District Court, Mehsana being Civil misc. Appeal No. 188/96 which was dismissed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, Camp Patan, by its judgment and order dated 20th November 1996. Hence the present Revision. #. It is both relevant and pertinent to note that the Code of Civil procedure (1908), has been amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, which was published in the Gazette of India dated 30th December 1999. However, by virtue of the Notification issued under section 1, subsection (2) of the said Amendment Act, the amendment came into force from 1st July 2002. #. For the present purposes, it requires to be noted that section 12 of the Amendment Act amends and modifies section 115 of the principal Act, whereby (inter alia) a new proviso has been substituted 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." It therefore becomes obvious that the High Court while exercising its powers of revision under section 115 of the Code (as amended), would be justified in entertaining such a revision application, and/or interfering with the impugned order, only where the impugned order, if it had been made in favour of the applicant in revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. In other words, a revision under section 115, after the amendment, would be entertainable only if the applicant in revision can successfully contend that if the trial court had granted the application made by the applicant, it would have disposed of the suit or other proceedings (as the case may be). #. It is also relevant to note that the aforesaid Amending Act of 1999, vide section 32 thereof, deals with repeal and savings. 4.1 By virtue of section 32, subsection (2), clause (i), the amendment introduced by section 12 of the Amending Act shall not affect any proceeding for revision which had been finally disposed of. Obviously, therefore, the only proceeding which the amendment does not and cannot affect is a revision which has been finally disposed of. In other words, any revision application which is pending admission, or pending final hearing after admission, would be governed by the amendment introduced by section 12 of the Amending Act. #. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the application made by the present applicant in revision, had it been granted by the trial court, would have disposed of the suit. Under the circumstances, it must be found that this court cannot "vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue ....". #. It necessarily follows that the present revision is therefore not maintainable and/or incompetent. #. The aforesaid view has also been expressed by this Court in the case of Parakramsinh Vikramsinh Jadeja vs. Yogi Corporation, reported at 2002 (3) GLR page 2040. #. This Revision Application is, therefore, rejected, with no order as to costs. Interim orders stand vacated. ( Y. B. BHATT, J. ) mathew