ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court dated 28th September, 2005, whereby the revisional court allowed the revision filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 27th September, 2004, passed by the trial court, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that during the pendency of suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 27th September, 2004. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, the respondent-defendant preferred a revision before the revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revisional court vide order impugned in the present writ petition allowed the revision filed by the respondent observing that by the amendment since the plaintiff has completely changed the original case and set up new pleadings, which has changed the nature of the case, therefore the trial court was in error in allowing the amendment application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. The revisional court thus rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submitted before this Court that in fact the revision filed by the respondent is not maintainable and so far as the view taken by the trial court that by the amendment the nature of the case will not be changed and the respondent-defendant has got an opportunity to object the same by filing written statement. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Prem Bakshi and Ors. v. Dharam Dev and Ors. 2002 (1) AWC 484 (SC) : 2002 (1) ACJ 119, wherein the Apex Court has ruled that "amendment allowed by subordinate court could not be said to have finally decided, it would not come under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure." The Apex Court further held that amendment in the plaint would not amount to failure of justice, therefore interference by High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is erroneous."
5. In view of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in the State of U.P. by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003, Section 115 is substituted by a new Section, i.e., Sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) of the U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003 is reproduced below:
115. Revision.- (1) ...
(2) ...
(3) The superior court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where:
(i) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding; or
(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made.
6. In view of what has been 'stated above, it is clear that deciding an application for amendment is deciding the proceedings finally, therefore I am not in agreement with the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that revision is not maintainable. My aforesaid view is supported by the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. 2003 (3) AWC 2198 (SC). In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti (supra), this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.