JUDGMENT Verma, J. - There is no force in this appeal. 2. The Appellants made an application u/s 4 of the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act and the usual proceedings followed. The first Respondent, Kr. Aditvir Singh, was not shown by the landlords applicants in the list of their creditor. The case proceeded and decrees u/s 14 were passed and were sent to the Collector u/s 19. Thereafter, Aditvir Singh filed a written statement of claim and alleged that he held a final mortgage decree against the landlords applicants, that the latter had fradulectly supressed his name and that he was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and requested the Special Judge to receive his statement of claim u/s 9 (3) of the Act. The landlords applicants and the other creditors opposed Aditvir Singh's request. The learned Special judge came to the conclusion that there had been fraud on the part of the landlords applicants, and passed an order that Aditvir Singh's written statement of claim be admitted subject to the payment of certain costs. This appeal is by the landlords applicants and is directed against that order. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the Respondent Aditvir Singh to the effect that no appeal lies against such an order. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants at great length and have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection must be upheld. All that has happened is that the Special Judge has received the written statement of Aditvir Singh's claim u/s 9 (3) of the Encumbered Estates Act. An appeal against an order lies only if the order is one finally disposing of the case (Section 45). In our judgment, the order against which this appeal is directed is not such an order. We may refer to First Appeal From Order No. 173 of 1944 (Musammat Sakina Bibi v. Ram Chander, which was decided by a Bench of this Court on February 28, 1946. The same point arose for consideration in that case and the facts of that case were similar to those of the present one and it was held that no appeal lay. We may also refer to the decision of a Bench of the Chief Court at Luck-now in Rukmangad Singh v. Bhikam Singh 1945 AWR (CC) 36: OA (CC) 36. The same point arose for consideration in that case and the facts of that case were similar to those of the present one and it was held that no appeal lay. We may also refer to the decision of a Bench of the Chief Court at Luck-now in Rukmangad Singh v. Bhikam Singh 1945 AWR (CC) 36: OA (CC) 36. There the claim was u/s 11 (2) of the Act and the Special Judge had admitted the claim under the proviso to that Sub-section. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has sought to distinguish that case on the ground that it was not a case of a claimant u/s 9. The argument, however, is without force, for, both in Section 9 (3) and the proviso to Section 11(2), the material words are the same, namely, "The Special Judge may .... receive". All that has happened in this case is that the Special Judge has received the written statement of claim filed by Aditvir Singh. 4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.