JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, J. - This revision application u/s 115 of the CPC is directed against an order of the Civil Judge of Lucknow holding that he had jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was maintainable against the defendant under the Displaced persons (Institution of Suits) Act No. X.LVII of 1948. It appears that the above two questions were treated as preliminary issues and the finding was given in favour of the plaintiff. It is obvious that these two issues embody only some of the questions arising in the case and it must, therefore, be held that the decision of these two issues however vital it may be from the point of view of the defendant, cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are two Fall Bench decisions to which it will be necessary to refer. The first is a decision of the Fall Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Buddhu Lal v. Mewa Ram I L B 43 All 564 in which it was held that no revision lies against a decision on the question of . jurisdiction where the Court has held that it had jurisdiction. It was observed that no case had been decided by the trial Court within the meaning of Section 115 and all that was decided was one out of several issues in the suit and the defendants had their remedy by way of appeal from the decree in suit if it should be decided against them. The other case is the decision of the late Chief Court of Avadh in Paras Nath v. Ram Bahadur 1935 O W N 1156 where the meaning of the word 'case" used in Section 115 was exhaustively discussed and it was held that where the trial Court had directed the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court fee, the order was an .interlocutory order in the suit and no revision lay on the ground that no case , had been decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC by the mere decision of a preliminary point regarding court -fee. The principle of these decisions has been followed in several other decisions of the Avadh Chief Court as well as in the Allahabad, High Court. The principle of these decisions has been followed in several other decisions of the Avadh Chief Court as well as in the Allahabad, High Court. It would be sufficient to refer to: Pirihivi Nath v. Bhagirath Tandon 1941 O W N 1350 1942 : A W R (O O ) 6 Bhagley v. Bale Din 1942 O W N 313 : A W R (C C) 208; District Board, Bahraich v. Ramendra Prasad Singh 1944 O W N 174 : A W R (C C )22; Ghani v, Mustafa Khan 1948 O W N 133 and Manna Lal and Others Vs. Ram Gopal and Another, AIR 1950 All 205 and two under reported Bench decisions in Mazahar Jameel v. Lala Babu Ram Section 115 Application No. 29 of. 1948 dated March 2, 1948, and the British India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Parmananda 1948. Yadava Section 115 Application No.24 1949 dated November 21. 1949. We hold, therefore, that the present revision application is not competent. 2. We accordingly dismiss the application as being not maintainable, with costs to the opposite party.