R.R. Yadav, J.

1. In the aforesaid three revisions common questions of law and facts are involved therefore, it would be expedient to dispose them of by a composite order.

2. Heard.

3 Perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that against the orders impugned no revisions are maintainable. It is found by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 10.7.1997 that second appeals are maintainable against the orders impugned.

4. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge directed the office to list before me for consideration whether conversion of these revisions into second appeals should be permitted or should not be permitted. The basic question would be whether a second appeal lies under Section 100 CPC against a decree passed in appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court or against a judgment. Here in the present cases these revisions have been filed against the judgments, not accompanied with the decrees therefore, the present revisions cannot be converted from revisions to second appeals.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri M.R. Singhvi urged before me that a reasonable time may be granted to him to produce the decrees prepared by the learned trial court. The aforesaid submissions made by Shri Singhvi are strongly opposed by the learned Counsel appealing on behalf of the respondents. Shri S.D. Vyas, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners urged before me that if the procedure suggested by Shri Singhvi is accepted by this Court then it would tend to defeat the very object of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act which provides that in computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff/appellant/revisionist has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. It is also urged by Shri Vyas that a revision is entertained on the basis of jurisdictional error where the court is satisfied that if the order impugned is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice or it would cause irreparable injury to the parties whereas a second appeal is filed on substantial questions of law. According to Shri Vyas a simple question of law is not a ground for interference in second appeal under amended Section 100 CPC unless that question attains the status of a substantial question of law.

6. I am of the view that the argument advanced by Shri Vyas has substance. These three revisions have been filed which are not accompanied with a decrees therefore, it is not possible for this Court to convert these revisions into second appeals. Secondly the revisionist has to make out substantial question of law in a second appeal which can be made possible only if the State is given an opportunity to file second appeals against the impugned judgments alongwith an application as envisaged under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act.

7. With the aforesaid observations, all these three revision petitions are hereby finally disposed of. The State is at liberty to file second appeals if so advised. A copy of this order be placed on the file of each revision.