(This revision is preferred under Section 115 CPC praying to revise the order dated 18.03.2005 passed in EA No.34 of 2005 in EA No.417 of 2000 in EA No.380 of 2000 in EP No.390 of 1996 in OS No.709 of 78 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul.) The respondents in E.A.No.34 of 2005 in E.A.No.417 of 2000 in E.A.No.380 of 2000 in E.P.No.390 of 1996 in O.S. No.709 of 1978 are the revision petitioners. 2.The facts though may not be necessary in detail to dispose this revision, minimum requirements are as follows: One Balakrishnagiri Bai obtained a money decree against one Ramanathan in O.S.No.709 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul, based on a promissory note. Pursuant to the decree, in order to realise the fruits of the same, by filing execution petition No.103 of 1986, she brought the properties of Ramanathan in a court auction, in which one Sankaranarayanan had purchased the property, being the successful auction purchaser. When the E.P. was posted for confirmation of sale, it appears the auction purchaser Sankaranarayanan died, resulting the impleading of the L.Rs. 3.The judgment debtor, by name Ramanathan, seems to have sold the properties to one Shanmugam on 7.2.1985. Before Court sale, Shanmugam paid some amounts and thereafter, he had filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, depositing the amount also, as contemplated, in E.A.No.276 of 1996, impleading the plaintiff/decree holder and defendant/judgment debtor, as respondent. When that application, namely EA No.276 of 1996, was pending, it appears auction purchaser died. Despite the fact, time was granted for taking steps in E.A.No.276 of 1996, the petitioner therein has not taken steps and therefore, the application was dismissed on 19.11.1993, for default. Then, the same was restored as per order in E.A.No.266 of 1994. After taking steps, due to change of pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts, the case pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, was transferred to District Munsif, Dindigul, where the E.P. was renumbered as E.P.No.390 of 1996 and E.A. was also renumbered. Once again, E.A. and E.P. were dismissed for default. Then, on application, once again E.P. was restored to file. The petitioner in E.A.No.276 of 1996, namely Mr.Shanmugam, after the dismissal of E.P. or otherwise, appears to have sold the property, to the respondent herein, by name Pavalamani on 29.09.1999 or so. After the restoration of E.P., the court sale was confirmed on 27.10.1999. 4.Shanmugam, who had purchased the property from judgment debtor, filed E.A.No.321 of 2001 to restore the E.A. filed by him to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, which was dismissed, along with E.A.No.320 of 2001, for condonation of delay in filing the said application. The court concerned allowed both the applications, thereby causing grievance to the L.Rs. of the auction purchaser, who obtained sale certificate on 27.10.1999. Therefore, L.Rs. of the auction purchaser have filed C.R.P.Nos.229 and 247 of 2002 on the file of this Court, questioning the allowing of E.A.Nos.320 and 321 of 2001, which were aimed to restore the petition to set aside the sale, after condoning the delay. 5.This Court, after considering the prolonged litigation between the parties as well as the legal position, came to the conclusion that the lower court had committed an error, in condoning the delay as well as restoring the petition, filed by Mr.Shanmugam to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, i.e. probably E.A.No.276 of 1996. In this view, C.R.Ps were allowed, dismissing E.A.Nos.320 and 321 of 2001. Thus, the sale in favour of the auction purchaser and the sale certificate issued in pursuance of the same, reached finality, because of the further fact the said Shanmugam failed before the Apex Court also, by moving special leave petitions, which were dismissed on 10.12.2004. The litigation started in the year 1978, for the recovery of some amount on the basis of promissory note, thus reached finality on record, as stated above. But, the parties interested in the properties have not satisfied, and once again, the case is reagitated by the purchaser of the property, from Shanmugam, who lost the battle, even before the Apex Court. 6.The respondent in this revision petition, after her predecessor in interest had lost the battle, finally, filed a petition in E.A.No.417 of 2000, purported to be one under Section 47 C.P.C r/w Section 151 C.P.C, wherein the prayers, prayed are that the order passed on 27.10.1999 in E.P.No.390 of 1996 is null and void, i.e. the order confirming the sale in favour of the auction purchaser, whose L.Rs are the revision petitioners. In the petition, i.e. in E.A.No.417 of 2000, reiterating the history of the case, it is alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition that the restoration of E.P., which was dismissed for default, was not known to the purchaser of the property and the restoration order is also not legal, etc. That petition was opposed by the L.Rs. of the auction purchaser/revision petitioners, and the same is pending, awaiting decision of the court. 7.The respondent herein, who is the petitioner in E.A.No.417 of 2000, when the case was under progress, that too when some of the witnesses have been examined, filed E.A.No.34 of 2005, seeking certain amendments, under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C r/w Sections 141 and 151 CPC, as detailed in the amendment application, more or less with an aim to give life to the dead litigation, commenced by her predecessor in interest. 8.The amendment application was opposed by the L.Rs of the auction purchaser, contending that the petition is aimed only to drag on the proceedings and if the proposed amendments are allowed to be introduced, that will, not only cause prejudice to their case, but also it will circumvent the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.Nos.247 and 229 of 2002 with among other grounds. 9.The learned Principal District Munsif, hearing the parties and by going through the proposed amendments, taking very lenient view felt that some of the proposed amendments are just and necessary, to decide the dispute between the parties and one of the proposed amendments cannot be permitted. Taking this view, the petition was allowed in part, dismissing the amendment in respect of the 4th claim alone, allowing the other proposed amendments, in respect of 1,2,3,5 and 6, that too, on payment of cost of Rs.1000/-, as per order dated 18.3.2005, which is sought to be assailed in this revision. 10.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 11.Mr.M.V.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, submitted that by the proposed amendments, the respondent herein attempted to nullify the orders of this Court in C.R.P.Nos.229 and 247 of 2002, which reached finality, since special leave petitions were also dismissed; which were not properly appreciated by the court below, committing an error in allowing the amendment application. It is the further submission of the learned counsel, that the respondent, being the purchaser from an alienee, pending attachment, cannot seek to file a petition, questioning the confirmation of sale by way of the proposed amendments, that too even after the entire proceedings were over, which are not properly appreciated by the court below, thereby committed a flagrant violation, which is to be nullified, in this revision. It is the further submission of the learned counsel, that the respondent has no locus standi to include the averments, regarding Order 21 Rule 89 CPC in a petition under Section 47 CPC, which are entirely different. On the above basis, urging further, explaining how the trial court has not properly understood the intention of the amendments, and committed an error, which should be set aside in this revision. 12.Responding to the above arguments, Mr.S.S.Ramasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that in a petition filed under Section 47 CPC, some of the facts, which are most relevant to decide the real dispute in question, have not been incorporated originally and only by way of clarification, they are sought to be introduced by way of amendments, which were properly considered by the court below, not warranting interference by this court. 13.The above said submission was only ancillary, whereas the main submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was, that the revision, as such, is not at all maintainable and therefore, this Court cannot go into detail, about the merit and demerit of the order passed by the trial court, the further fact being, the revision petitioners are having a chance to agitate their case even before the executing court. 14.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, probably, realizing some difficulties in maintaining the revision, since filed under Section 115 CPC, filed a memo, paying court fee, seeking indulgence of this court, to convert the CRP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, instead of revision under Section 115 CPC. Under the above said backdrops, it would be desirable, at the first instance itself, to decide the maintainability of the revision, whether it will come under Section 115 CPC or it should be converted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the court comes to the conclusion, revision is maintainable either way or one, then alone on the above said facts, it is to be seen whether the order of the lower court, in allowing the amendments, to major extent is revisable. 15.The submission of Mr.Ramasubramanian, that the revision under Section 115 CPC is not at all maintainable, is not only supported by the intrinsic provisions available in Section 115 CPC, but also supported by the plethora decisions, not only by this court, but also by the Apex Court of this land, which declares law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, binding on all Courts. 16.It is an admitted position that the order passed in EA No.34 of 2005 is an order passed by the lower court in an interlocutory application, not passing any order on merits on the main petition, thereby deciding the main case on merits, which would have the effect of dismissal of the main application or allowing the application, as the case may be. In this view, the order impugned in this revision is only in the nature of interim order, not effectively disposing the main petition, and I find no dispute in this regard. Therefore, it is to be seen, whether this kind of interim order is revisable under Section 115 CPC. 17.Section 115 CPC reads, "115.Revision-[(1)] The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a)to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b)to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c)to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. 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. (a)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, or (b)the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made." 18.Though the first part of Sub clause 1 vested jurisdiction upon the High Court to call for records of any case which has been decided, in which no appeal lies, to find out whether the Subordinate Court had exercised jurisdiction properly or failed to exercise the jurisdiction or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, such right conferred was curtailed by the proviso, stating that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order passed by the Subordinate Court, 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 or if the order is allowed to stand, that would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. As far as the first part is concerned, it is not satisfied here, since the order passed in this case has not finally terminated the proceedings. If at all the revision petitioner has to rely upon the proviso (b) and in my considered opinion, as held by the Apex Court, it is also not available. In this case, the order passed by the lower court in allowing the amendment application is not the end of the proceedings or ending the case. After amendment is allowed, the revision petitioner would be given a chance to file additional counter, thereby providing sufficient opportunity, to defend or oppose the proposed amendments also, as if they are not germane to decide the petition under Section 47 CPC, that too in view of the finality reached, in the application filed under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, since the respondent also agitating her claim stepping into the shoes of Shanmugam. In this view, the revision petitioners are having sufficient opportunity, to convince the court to accept their plea, thereby even nullifying the amendments allowed. Therefore, there is no possibility even to presume that if the order is allowed to stand, that would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party, namely in this case the revision petitioners. It is not the submission of either counsel before this Court, that the impugned order is having the effect of terminating the proceedings, thereby not affording any opportunity to the affected party to agitate the same. This, even assuming that the executing court had committed an error, in allowing the amendment application, that will not give any power to the affected party, to come to this court as revision petitioner challenging the order, which is an interlocutory order, against which the revision is barred under Section 115 CPC, which is supported by overwhelming authorities, from this Court to the Apex Court. 19.The Apex Court, as early as in 1980, while deciding the case in Vishesh Kumar Vs. Shanti Prasad (AIR 1980 SC 892 [LQ/SC/1980/119] ) had an occasion to consider, where revisional power is given to the District Court, whether the High Court can exercise that jurisdiction, under Section 115 CPC. In that case, a revision was barred impliedly, to the High Court, giving power to the District Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court held, the High Court is not vested with revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, over a revisional order made by the District Court, under that section. The phrase "case arising out of an original suit" occurring in Section 115 does not cover orders in revision. Then, it is further held, "If a revision petition is permitted to the High Court against the revisional order of the District Court arising out of a suit of a value less than Rs.20,000/-, a fundamental contradiction would be allowed to invade and destroy the division of revisional power between the High Court and the District Court, for the High Court would then enjoy jurisdictional power in respect of an order arising out of a suit of a valuation below Rs.20,000/-. That was never intended at all." In this view, it is held when there is specific bar of revisional power against an interlocutory order, then the question of exercising jurisdiction would not arise for consideration against the statute, conferring self imposed power, thereby negating the intention of the legislator, that was never intended. 20.In Mahabir Prasad Singh Vs. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd. (1998 MLJ(SC)(Supp.)1, the Apex Court, while considering the scope of Section 115(1) proviso inserted by the amended Act, came to the conclusion that "The High Court has committed a jurisdictional error in entertaining the revision petition filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 21.5.1998. The order is clearly not revisable by the High court in view of the specific interdict embodied in the Proviso to Sec.115(1) of the Code. Under the same sub-section, a High Court is empowered to call for the records of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate thereto, if it had exceeded or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or had acted illegally or with material irregularity. In such cases, the High Court has power to make such order as it thinks fit. The restriction against exercise of such a general power has been incorporated in the Proviso which was inserted in the sub-section by the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act of 1976. Out of the two changes in the Proviso, the former has no application to the order which has been challenged in the High Court because even if the application by the respondent filed on 21.5.1998 was granted the suit would not have been finally disposed of. The latter clause could be resorted to only if that order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the respondent. Thus, even if such an order passed by the Subordinate Court has any illegality or is affected by material irregularity, the High Court will not interfere unless the said order, if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or its effect would be infliction of irreparable injury to any party." As said above, in the case on hand, the impugned order is permitting the respondent, herein to make some amendments in the execution application, filed under Section 47 CPC. To challenge the averments, certainly, opportunities should be given to the revision petitioners and therefore, it cannot be said, if no interference is made by this Court, allowing the order to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice or it would cause irreparable injury to any party. 21.The Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. M/s. Swaraj Developers and others (AIR 2003 SC 2434 [LQ/SC/2003/522] ), considered the effect of amended Section 115 CPC once again, and came to the conclusion that scope for making a revision under Section 115 is not linked with a substantive right, observing, it is a source of power of the High Court, to have effective control on the functioning of the Subordinate Courts by exercising supervisory power; declaring that right of appeal is a substantive right, but no such right is available in making an application under Section 115 CPC. Then, considering the amplitude of Section 115(3) CPC, it is observed, "A new sub-sec.(3) has been added in S.115 by the Amendment Act which states that 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 High Court. A plain reading of S.115 as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is "yes" then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is "no" then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is of interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. The legislative intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject matter of revision under S.115." 22.In a recent case, the Apex Court once again considered the scope of Section 115 CPC and reaffirmed the view already taken, namely the revision petition of this nature, targeted against an order interim in nature is not maintainable and that dictum is available in Gayatri Devi and others Vs. Shashi Pal Singh (2005(2)CTC 157). In paragraph 14 of the judgment, reiterating the stand taken by the Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society Vs. Swaraj Developers, it is observed that, "In the first place, it appears to us that the revision petition before the High Court was wholly incompetent in view of the amended provision of Section 115 of the CPC. The Revision Petition was entertained at a stage of an interlocutory proceedings. As laid down by this Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society Vs.Swaraj Developers, 2003(2) CTC 564 : 2003(6) SCC 659, an order interim in nature or which does not finally decide the lis, cannot be challenged by way of a revision under Section 115 of the CPC." In view of the above settled position, revision of this nature is not maintainable, against an interim order of this nature, which gave permission to amend the petition. 23.This Court also, on different occasions, had taken the same view, as seen from (1)A.R.Ponnusamy rep by Power Agent Venkatachalam Vs. Thoppalan @ Karuppa Gounder (1999 MLJ (Suppl) 630, (2)M.Sampath Vs. Geethanjali Investment represented by its Power of Attorney Agent, Gudiyatham (2004 (2) MLJ 389), (3)S.G.Badrinath by Power of Attorney C.G.Swaminathan V.V.Jagannathan and another (2004-1-LW. 695), and (4)Subbian Vs. Siva Kumar (2000 MLJ (Suppl) 511) which need not be elaborately discussed, in view of the settled position by the Apex Court. 24.For the foregoing reasons, considering revision under Section 115 CPC and applying the law declared by the court, I have no hesitation to say, undoubtedly also, that the revision filed under Section 115 CPC is not at all maintainable. 25.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, realizing the difficulty, in sustaining the revision petition and in view of the settled proposition of law, as the last resort, submitted that the revision petition may be converted, as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to that effect, a memo also filed, paying necessary court fee. Therefore, it is to be seen, whether the impugned order could be revised under the power of superintendence over all the courts vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 26.It is the submission of Mr.M.V.Krishnan that the mistake committed or flagrant violation committed by the trial court should be set at naught, otherwise irreparable loss would occasion, to the auction purchaser, even resulting, upsetting the orders passed by this court in C.R.P.Nos.229 and 247 of 2002. In support of the above submission, he relied upon a decision of this Court in K.Chockalingsm Vs. K.R.Ramasamy Iyer and another (2004-4-LW-586), wherein I have taken a view, placing reliance upon the Supreme Court decision, that the revision filed under Section 115 CPC may be converted one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under certain extraordinary circumstances, in order to erase the flagrant violation inflicted by the court, while deciding the case, not exercising the jurisdiction properly. In the case involved in the above decision, question of limitation had been raised by one of the defendants, but unfortunately, the Court had dismissed the suit in entirety, even against the person, where the suit was in time, because of acknowledgment of debt by him. In this view, this Court felt, the lower court has not exercised its jurisdiction or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or exercised jurisdiction wrongly against the admitted position and law, and that being the order finally disposing the case, where there is no opportunity to the affected party to question the same, if that kind of the order, i.e. the final order decided on merits, is allowed to stand, certainly that would cause irreparable loss, warranting to invoke the power vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that is why, it is held, "Thus, a duty is cast upon the court, to go into the question of limitation and decide the same according to law. Since the first appellate Court has failed in its duty, and committed in my considered view, a flagrant violation, defeating the right of the plaintiff, to grant a decree against the first defendant, the same has to be set right under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for which there cannot be any grievance, from the respondents." 27.This kind of situation is not available in the case on hand, and therefore seeking aid on that ruling, the revision petitioners could not reach the winning post. If a final order has been passed, affecting the right of the parties, giving no chance for them to rectify the same, at any point of time, in the proceedings itself, certainly, as ruled by the Apex Court, this Court should go to the aid of the person, who is affected by the order, which should not be allowed to stand or if allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury, to the party against whom it was made. 28.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not challenged the power of this Court to convert the CRP filed under Section 115 CPC, as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereas the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, was that even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order passed by the lower court cannot be nullified, or interfered, since that order will not come within the umbrella of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, warranting interference, under the superintendence jurisdiction, seeking aid from the Apex Court rulings. 29.In Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (2003-3-SCC 524), a constitution Bench of the Apex Court has taken a view "where remedy of filing a revision petition before the High Court under S.115 CPC has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution." Further, giving an illustration, the Bench observed that "where a trial court in a civil suit refused to grant temporary injunction and an appeal against refusal to grant injunction has been rejected, and a State enactment has barred the remedy of filing revision under Section 115 CPC, in such a situation a writ petition under Article 227 would lie." Thus, holding, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie, a word of caution also expressed, under what circumstances the High Court, on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, can review or reweigh, if possible the order of the inferior court and observed that, "... Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision."(emphasis supplied). This being the position, though the revision could be converted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, still I am afraid, whether the order could be revised under Article 227 of the Constitution, in view of the opinion expressed by the Apex Court in the above ruling. 30.In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (AIR 2003 SC 3044 [LQ/SC/2003/758] ), which came to be decided after Sadhana Lodh case, once again the Apex Court reaffirmed the view, under what circumstances the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, could be exercised and under what circumstances, a writ could be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While deciding the case, it is observed, "Supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction." which principle may not be applicable to the case on hand, since it cannot be said, allowing the amendment application will come within the meaning of, the lower court failed to exercise the jurisdiction, which it does have, or exceeded the jurisdiction or anything done not permitted by law, thereby ending in failure of justice or grave injustice, which cannot be rectified. It is also further observed, "The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis." thereby showing, if there is no chance, for the parties to correct the mistake said to have been committed by the court below, then only compelling this court to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India not otherwise. In this view, assuming that the trial court has committed an error in allowing the amendment application, giving chance, to agitate the closed case, that cannot be corrected by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as declared by the Apex Court. Thus, placing reliance upon Surya Dev Rai case, though a revision could be maintained under certain circumstances, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am of the view, the order impugned cannot be revised, which is evident from the ruling available in Prem Bakshi and others Vs. Dharam Dev and others (AIR 2002 SC 559 [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] ">AIR 2002 SC 559 [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] ">AIR 2002 SC 559 [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] ">AIR 2002 SC 559 [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] ). 31.In the case involved in the above decision (AIR 2002 SC 559 [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] ">AIR 2002 SC 559 [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] ">AIR 2002 SC 559 [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] ">AIR 2002 SC 559 [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] [LQ/SC/2002/19 ;] ), by way of amendment of plaint, the appellant therein sought to bring, to the notice of the Court the subsequent facts, which were allowed. The said order came to be challenged finally before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, considering the order passed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC held that the order in question by which the amendment was allowed could not be said to have finally disposed of the case and, therefore, it would not come under clause (a). Then, the Apex Court has given reasons, how the parties to the lis are not affected by the order of this interim in nature, wherein it is said, "... After all amendments of the pleadings would not amount to decisions on the issue involved. They only would serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. Hence we cannot envisage a situation where amendment of pleadings, whatever be the nature of such amendment would even remotely cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party." This ruling is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, whether the revision is under Section 115 CPC or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot revise the same, since the order is interim in nature and the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion failure of justice. 32.The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted, even on merits also, revising the order of lower court is not possible, in view of the fact, in a petition filed under Section 47 CPC, to set aside the sale, the respondent herein attempted to explain the existing averments, adding some more facts pertaining to the previous proceedings. The previous proceedings in this case sought to be introduced by way of amendment, is the fate of a petition filed under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC by the respondents predecessor in interest, by depositing the amount. As held by the apex Court in Challamane Huchha Gowda Vs. M.R.Tirumala and another (2004-1-SCC 453), Rule 89 of Order 21 CPC does not provide that the application in a particular form shall be filed, to set aside the sale and even a memo with prayer for setting aside the sale is sufficient, compliance with the said Rule. In this case, it appears, entire amounts were deposited, but not properly prosecuted or something like that, which are sought to be raised once again. Whether the respondent herein is entitled to raise the same once again, in view of the fact it reached finality, as said supra, I am not going to express any opinion, and the same has to be decided by the lower court, giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner. The trial court, considering the scope of the amendment, allowed the amendment application to certain extent, rejected one amendment also, thereby showing application of mind to some extent. The question remains, whether the respondent herein is entitled to raise the points, which were raised and allowed to vanish, by the predecessor in interest, which shall be remembered always. In this view, assuming the lower court landed in any apparent error, exercising supervisory jurisdiction to correct the so-called error is impermissible in law, under Article 227 of the Constitution, as declared by the Honourable Supreme Court. 33.For the foregoing reasons, the revision does not deserve acceptance, whereas requires dismissal. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 34.The trial court is directed to give an opportunity, to file reply or additional counter to the revision petitioners, opposing the averments introduced in the amendment application, then decide the case on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order, since the parties are agitating their rights for a long period, commencing from 1978. It is further clarified, despite amendment petition was allowed, overruling the objections, the revision petitioners, are not precluded, from raising the same defence, to oppose the amended petition under Section 47 CPC, which is pending. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.