- (1.)THIS reference has been made to resolve the conflict between two sets of Single Bench decisions of this Court viz. ; Sawal Singh, 2002 (4) M. P. H. T. 200 = 2002 (11) MPJR 169; Narsingh, 2002 (11) MPJR 165; and Hanuman Datt, 2002 (4) M. P. H. T. 343 = 2002 (4) MPLJ 354, on the point of tenability of revision against an order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arising from the order of the Trial Court deciding application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. The question referred for our decision is :
"whether the order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC deciding an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC one way or the other, can be challenged by taking recourse to revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of CPC" ?

(2.)IN Sawal Singh and Narsingh (supra), it is held that the order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1, CPC in which application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC was decided, cannot, on and after 1-7-2002 be challenged by taking recourse to revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115. However, in Hanuman Datt (supra), contrary view has been expressed and it is held :
"that the appeal in which appellate order is passed is covered by the word 'case' used in the opening part of Sub-section (1) of Section 115. If there is jurisdictional error or infirmity of the kind specified in Clauses (a) to (c) of this sub-section then a revision against such an appellate order would lie".

(3.)SINCE the question involved was of larger importance, we requested Senior Advocates of this Court Sarvashri S. D. Sanghi, G. M. Chaphekar, P. K. Saxena and B. L. Pavecha to address and assist the Court in resolving the issue. They all together with Sarvashri A. S. Kutumble, G. L. Verma and J. K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the parties, addressed the Court. Mainly the arguments were advanced by the Senior Advocates while the others merely supported one line or the other of the arguments.