JUDGMENT Thomas, G.J. and Ghulam Hasan, J. - This revision application u/s 115 of the CPC is directed against an order dated the 3rd September, 1937, passed by the learned Civil Judge, of Fyzabad, rejecting the application of the plaintiff-applicant to amend his plaint. 2. It appears that originally two plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of certain property against the defendants-opposite-party jointly and severally on the allegation that the plaintiff No. 1 had succeeded as a widow upon the death of her husband in 1911. It was stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the plaintiff No. 1 had appointed the plaintiff No. 2 as her successor to all properties of which the plaintiff No. 1 had been in possession as successor of her husband throughout India and Native States including the properties in suit. The suit was instituted on the 7th December, 1936. The plaintiff No. 1 died on the 31st January, 1937, while the suit was pending. The plaintiff No. 2 was allowed to continue the suit under Order XXII Rule 2 of the CPC as the right to sue survived to him alone. The surviving plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint on the 5th July, 1937, whereby it was intended to introduce the plea of adoption of plaintiff No. 2 by the plaintiff No. 1 without the permission of her husband under a special custom pleaded by the plaintiff No. 2. The application for amendment was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the amendment was mala fide and was intended to alter the claim or the nature of the suit. 3.The learned Civil Judge by an order dated the 3rd September, 1937, held that the amendment sought would alter the nature of the suit and would introduce a matter of much more cotentious nature than what was contained in the plaint originally, and hence he refused the application for amendment. 4. The sole surviving plaintiff has now come up in revision against the order of the trial Court refusing his application for amendment. 5. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this application on the ground that no case has been decided and, therefore, no revision lies u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The sole surviving plaintiff has now come up in revision against the order of the trial Court refusing his application for amendment. 5. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this application on the ground that no case has been decided and, therefore, no revision lies u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reference is made in support of the preliminary objection to Paras Nath v. Ran Bahadur 1935 O W N 1158 : A I R 1936 Oudh 22 (F.B.) and Suraj Bali v. Ariya Pretinidhi Sabha, U. P. 1936 A W R 776 (F.B.) : 1936 A L J 923. 6. The learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant relies on Ruramal Ram Nath v. Kapilman Misir ) 1934 57 All 459 : 4 A W R 802 and Mst. Lachmin v. Bhairon Bakhsh Singh 1940 O A 465 : 1940 A W R (C.C.) 248 : 1940 O W N 500. 7. The case of Ruramal Ram Nath v. Kapilman Misir 1934) 57 All 459 : 4 A W R 802 has been overruled in the Full Bench decision in Suraj Bali v. Ariya Pretinidhi Sabha, U. P. 1936 A W R 776 (F.B.) : 1936 A L J 923. There being a conflict of authority in the Allahabad High Court on the question, the matter was referred to a Full Bench. After discussing at length several decisions of the Allahabad High Court, including the Bench decision of Ruramal Ram Nath v. Kapilman Misir 1934) 57 All 459 : 4 A W R 802 the learned Judges held that no revision lies from an order 8. under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC refusing to allow an amendment of a pleading. After discussing at length several decisions of the Allahabad High Court, including the Bench decision of Ruramal Ram Nath v. Kapilman Misir 1934) 57 All 459 : 4 A W R 802 the learned Judges held that no revision lies from an order 8. under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC refusing to allow an amendment of a pleading. A distinction was drawn in the case reported in Ruramal Ram Nath v. Kapilman Misir 1934) 57 All 459 : 4 A W R 802 between an order allowing an amendment and an order refusing to allow the amendment, and it was laid down at page 473 of the report that an order allowing an amendment cannot be successfully challenged in revision as the Court cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction or to have acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction but where a Court refuses to allow amendments, the order of refusal proceeds on an illegal or irregular exercise, of jurisdiction and hence is liable to interference u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Chief Justice in the Full Bench decision in Suraj Bali v. Ariya Pretinidhi Sabha 1936 A W R 776 (F.B.) : 1936 A L J 923 observed (P. 779) Now if a case within the meaning of Section 115 C. P. C., is started as soon as an application for the amendment of a pleading is made then the case would be decided when final orders on that application are passed, no matter whether the application is allowed or disallowed. There would be an anomaly in holding that if the application is allowed the case is not decided, but if it is not allowed the case is decided If the filling of the application was the commencement of a new proceeding (sic) a case, then the case must necessarily be decided if the application is allowed. But it has been held consistently by this Court that when an application for amendment has been allowed (sic) case can be said to have been decided as (sic) made the subject of a revision to this Court. The cases laying down that no revision lies from orders merely allowing or disallowing amendments which are to some extent matters of discretion seem to (sic) laid dowu the cor(sic)law 9. The cases laying down that no revision lies from orders merely allowing or disallowing amendments which are to some extent matters of discretion seem to (sic) laid dowu the cor(sic)law 9. The case in Mst. Laehmin v. Bhairon Bakhsh Singh 1940 O A 465 : 1940 A W R (C.C.) 248 : 1940 O W N 500 affords no help to the applicant. In that case the trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as it had not been proved that the plaintiff was dispossessed by any of the defendants. The plaintiff then appealed and in appeal the learned Civil Judge allowed the plaintiff to amend his plaint so as to base his claim not on his dispossession but on the allegation that the defendant No. 1 was not the owner in possession of some of the property sold. The reliefs for pos session and damages were deleted and the suit was confined only to a prayer for recovery of the sale price with interest The learned Civil Judge remanded the suit for a trial be (sic) in the light of the amendment allowed by him. It was held that no appeal lay against the order of remand made under the inherent powers of the Court. It was further held the lower appellate Court exercised jurisdiction vested in it by law with material irregularity and the order allowing the amendment was open to revision and was interfered with. That case, therefore, is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the trial Court had actually decided the case and it was only in the lower appellate Court that the amendment was allowed and the suit remanded. 10. It was held in Peras Nath v. Ran Bahadur 1935 O W N 1158 : A I R 1936 Oudh 22 (F. B.) in a case where the plaintiff had paid an insufficient amount of court-fee and was ordered to make good the deficiency within a certain time, that no revision lay against the interlocutroy order, as no case had been decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC by the mere decision of a preliminary point regarding court-fees, and secondly because no question of jurisdiction arose in such case. 11. 11. There are at least two decisions of the late Court of the judicial Commissioner of Oudh, in Brij Indra Bhadur Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Kh(sic) for Mahewa Estate (sic) (1917) 5 O.L.J. 430 : ILR 1918 Oudh 430. (sic) and AIR 1925 254 (Oudh) which are directly in point, It was held in the former case by a Bench that Section 115 authorised the Court to call for the record of any case, which had been decided, but where there had been no decision and the case was still pending, interlocutory orders, passed during, the course of the hearing, could not be made the subject of revision, unless those orders had the effect of determining the case, so far as the party applying for revision was concerned, or concluding the claim otherwise in a manner not open to appeal. In this case the revision had been filed against an order refusing to permit an amendment of the plaint in certain particulars. It was observed at page 432 It is open to the plaintiff to content the propriety of the order refusing him leave to amend the plaint u/s 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when an appeal is filed from the final decree 12. In the latter case AIR 1925 254 (Oudh) it was held that the application for leave to amend was not a case, and therefore, no revision could lie against an order refusing to grant leave to amend either u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act or u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. We uphold the preliminary objection and hold that no revision is entertainable in this case. 14. We, therefore, dismiss this application with costs