JUDGMENT V. D. Bhargava, J. - The present case was filed as an application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicants Mahabir Prasad and Beni Madho had applied to the Collector, Rae Bareli under Sec. 4 of the E. E. Act. That application was sent to the Special Judge, second grade, Pratapgarh. The Special Judges issued notices for the purposes of creditors inviting them to file written statements of claims. Kedar Nath, the opposite-party, who claimed to be one of the creditors, filed his written statement, but that was filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act. The applicants objected to the filing of the written statement on the ground of limitation. 2. The Special Judge rejected the written statement on the ground that it was filed beyond limitation. 3. There was an appeal to the District Judge who dismissed the objection and allowed the written statement to be accepted as within time. Aggrieved by that decision the applicants came to this Court in revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. 4. The matter came up before a learned single judge of this Court, where an objection was taken that no revision lay against that order, upon which it was prayed that it may be treated to be a second appeal from order and it was so converted as there was no question of limitation or payment of court-fees in the above case. 5. Another objection that was taken when the case was before the learned single judge was to the effect that under clause (ii) of rule 2 of Chapter V of the Rules of this Court the case was triable by a Division Bench. The aforesaid rule provides cases which are to be heard by a single judge and clause (ii) of rule 2 of Chapter V is as follows:- "(ii) (a) a civil First or Second Appeal from a decree, including an appeal arising out of a case instituted in a revenue court, in which the value of appeal for the purpose of jurisdiction does not exceed ten thousand rupees; (b) an appeal under section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; (c) any other civil appeal in which the value of the appeal does not exceed twenty thousand rupees." 6. The learned single Judge was of opinion that the case came under clause (a) and since the valuation is more than Rs. 10,000/-, the appeal should be disposed of by a Bench and therefore, referred the case to a Bench. 7. In our opinion clause (a) refers to all regular First and Second Appeals from decrees. The word "including" only exemplifies "the appeal from a decree", making it clear that if an appeal is from a decree, it is immaterial whether it is from a civil Court or a revenue Court. If it is an appeal against a decree and the valuation does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-, it would be heard and disposed of by a single Judge. The words "including an appeal arising out of a case instituted in a Revenue Court" does not create a new class of appeals apart from `appeal from a decree,' and appeals from orders could not be included in it. There cannot be any doubt, that at least, all appeals from orders of Court other than Revenue Court up to the valuation of Rs. 20,000/- would come under clause (c) and there appears to be no reason to hold that the appeals from orders from Revenue Courts should be treated in a different manner. So, in our opinion all appeals from orders, whether of Civil Court or of Revenue Court, would come under clause (c) of this rule and, therefore, this appeal can be heard by a single Judge and should be heard by a singly Judge. We do not propose to hear the appeal and direct that the appeal be laid before a single Judge for final disposal at an early date.