JUDGMENT Grhulam Hasan and Madeley, JJ. - This revision application is preferred by the debtors from an- appellate order dated the 10th September, 1941, passed by the District Judge of Hardoi Upholding the order of the Special Judge second grade, who had admitted the claim of the opposite-parties u/s 11 of the- U. P. Encumbered Estates Act. 2. It appears that the Special Judge admitted the claim filed by the opposite parties under the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 11 of the Act holding that they had sufficient cause for not making the application within the period prescribed under sub-Section (2). This order in our opinion was not appealable u/s 45 (2) of the Encumbered Estates Act, which requires that an appeal to the District Judge can lie only against a decree or order finally disposing of the case by a Special Judge of the Second grade. The order which the Special Judge passed merely entertained the claim put forward by the opposite-parties and the claim had yet to be investigated on the merits. It was not an order finally disposing of the case Accordingly we hold that the appeal to the lower appellate Court was not competent. If this view is correct, that no revision lies to this Court u/s 115 of the CPC as the order passed by the Special Judge was an interlocutory order which did not decide the case. 3. We have been asked by the learned Counsel for the applicants to. treat this revision application a; a second appeal under sub-Section (2-a). We are unable to grant this request. If the appeal to the lower appellate Court was. not maintain- able, it follows that there can be no second appeal to this Court. 4. Accordingly we hold that no revision or appeal is competent. We, therefore, dismiss this revision application with costs.