SATISH Chandra, J. - (1.) This is a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. It is directed against a revisional order passed by the Additional District Judge under Section 25, Small Cause Courts "act. In view of the Supreme Court decision in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad (Civil Appeal No. 2844 of 1979) decided on 12th March, 1980, the revision is not maintiinable and is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel prayed for permission to convert this revision into a writ petition. The same prayer was made in the aforesaid decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, observed as follows: "it has been urged by the appellant in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad. (supra) that in case this Court is of the opinion that a revision petitioner, under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, is not maintaina ble, the case should be remitted to the High Co urt for consideration as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. We are unable to accept that prayer. A revision petition under Section 115 is a separate and distinct proceeding from a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, and one cannot be identified with the other. '" Further, a revision is filed in the form of a memorandum containing the grounds only. A petition under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution is in the form of a petition wherein all the facts and the grounds etc. have to be mentioned. It is hence not practicable to convert the revision into a writ petition or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. As prayed, the certified copies may be returned to the learned counsel on his furnishing ordinary typed copies, of the orders. No order as to costs. .;