Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47050 Court No. - 6 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 33 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vikram Pratap Shahi And Another Opposite Party :- Santosh Kumar Ramavadh Singh And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Piyush Chandra Agarwal,Anand Sharma Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the material available on record. 2. The present revision has been filed challenging an order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.). Mohanlalganj, Lucknow in Civil Suit No. 504 of 2025 (Santosh Kumar Ramavadh Singh and four others vs. Vikram Pratap Shahi and another), whereby the amendment application filed by the plaintiff to the suit was allowed. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that, while passing the order, which is impugned, the amendment application was allowed without considering the material facts as were raised in the objection filed by the revisionist. The order impugned reveals that after the suit was filed sometime in March, 2025, an amendment application was preferred. The trial court after considering the law with regard to amendment proceeded to allow the amendment by observing that the suit is very initial stage, even the issues have not been framed and, thus, the amendment if allowed to be incorporated would not change the nature of the suit, the court also noticed the submission of the revisionist that these facts were always in the knowledge of the plaintiff and, thus, there was no justification for allowing the amendment application. 4. While arguing the present revision, counsel for the revisionists states that the amendment application was malafide in as much as all these facts were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and, thus, on that ground alone, the amendment application ought not to have been allowed. He further argues that the defenses were taken in the objection to the injunction application, based upon which, the amendment application has been filed after coming to know of the defence of the revisionist. It is, however, admitted that no written statement has been filed. 5. Considering the submission made by the revisionists, as recorded above, it is essential to notice the scope of Section 115 of the C.P.C., as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which is as under:- "115. Revision. (1) A superior court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order and where the subordinate court has- (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (2) A revision application under sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a certificate on the first page of such application, below the title of the case, to the effect that no revision in the case lies to the district court but lies only to the High Court either because of valuation or because the order sought to be revised was passed by the district court. (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. (4) 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 superior court." 6. In view of the specific bar contained under Section 115(iii) of C.P.C. restricting the interference with an order, against which a revision has been filed, primafacie, no material has been produced to suggest that on account of passing of the order, the revisionist would be occasioned a failure of justice or the same would cause irreparable injury to the revisionists. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of 'Smt. Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal & another vs. Sri Sudheer Mohan & Ors.', decided on 25.04.2022, wherein this Court has observed as under:- "21. Section 115 (iii) of C.P.C. as applicable in Uttar Pradesh clearly states that the order, if allowed to stand, results in failure of justice or causes irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made, the revision under Section 115 of C.P.C as applicable in the State of U.P. is maintainable. 22. Viewed from this angle, if any order illegally passed by the Court below on any application is allowed to stand affecting rights of parties, it is obvious that it would cause failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made, therefore, if said condition is present, the revision against any order passed by the Court below vide Section 115 (3) (ii) of C.P.C. as applicable in U.P. would lie." 8. It is no doubt that a revision would lie against an order allowing the amendment application, however, the rigours for exercise of power of revision is discretionary and are available subject to the restrictions, as are placed in the amended provision of Section 115 of C.P.C. in the State of Uttar Pradesh, I do not find any reason to form a view that the order impugned, as resulted in failure of justice or irreparable injury cause to the revisionists, as admittedly even the written statement has not been filed. 9. Thus, no good ground for interference is made out. The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench