JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Defendant No. 1 is the Petitioner. Narayan (Defendant No. 1) and deceased Kali were brothers. Plaintiff is the widow of Kali. She brought a suit for partition. A compromise decree was passed on 14-3-1951. 'Ka' schedule lands were allotted to the Plaintiff, 'Kha' to Defendant No. 1 and 'Ga' was kept joint. Plaintiff's case is that this decree is a composite decree, partly preliminary and partly final, while the defence contention is that this is a final decree. 2. Plaintiff filed an application before the learned Munsif of Nilgiri on 5-11-1960 praying to make the decree final. On 20-2-1961, this application was dismissed by the trial Court on the finding that the compromise decree was a final decree does not arise. On 24-4-1961, the application for review was dismissed. The Plaintiff then filed an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge of Balasore who allowed the appeal on 16-11-1961. Against this appellate order, this civil revision has been filed. 3. Mr. Mukherji raises two contentions-(i) that no appeal lay before the Subordinate Judge and therefore the order of the lower appellate Court setting aside the order of the trial Court is without jurisdiction; and (ii) that the construction put by the appellate Court on the decree that it was partly preliminary and partly final is not borne out by the recitals in the It decree itself. 4. I will examine the second contention first. The facts leading to the controversy between the parties as to the nature of the decree arises in the following manner. In' Ka' schedule, plot No. 214 is of an area of 43 decimals. Out of this, Plaintiff was allotted 21 decimals. In the same manner, from out of different plots, portions have been carved out in favour of the parties. No direction or description has been given of the reduced area so as to indicate which portion of a particular plot was specifically allotted to the Plaintiff or the Defendant. No map was attached to the decree to resolve the conflict. The result is that on a bare perusal of the terms of the decree, the Court is not in a position to say which portion of a particular plot was allotted to which party. Mr. No map was attached to the decree to resolve the conflict. The result is that on a bare perusal of the terms of the decree, the Court is not in a position to say which portion of a particular plot was allotted to which party. Mr. Mukherji contends that in the plaint itself there is an allegation that the parties were in possession of different portions of the same plot, and in the background of events the distribution, as made in the compromise decree, must be taken as to mean what the parties intended in the light of the factual position on the spot. This contention is not wholly preposterous. But the fact, still emerges, that the (sic), as framed, is likely to lead to future troubles in fixing the exact identity and the ownership of a particular area. Taking the decree as a whole, though Mr. Mukherji's contention cannot be said to be absurd, the better view would be to treat the decree as not the finally settling the specific and definite title of individual co-owners with respect to the property. In that view of the matter, taking the decree as a whole, I am inclined to agree with the lower appellate Court and not with the trial Court that the decree is partly preliminary and partly final. 5. The aforesaid conclusion does not, however, settle the difficulty. The trial Court's order was one u/s 151, CPC and is revisable but not appealable. The appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge was therefore without jurisdiction and the order of the learned lower appellate Court is to be ordinarily vacated as a nullity. 6. The more difficult question that next arises is, can the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction refuse to vacate the order of the lower appellate Court when real and substantial justice has been done by the order of the Court, though without jurisdiction? Mr. Pal, to regularise matters, has filed an application in revision in course of the hearing. I do not ventertain that revision application as it has been filed long after and is accordingly rejected. There are, however, authorities for the view that if the revisional Court finds that real and substantial justice has been done by the order of the appellate Court, though without jurisdiction, it may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in interfering with that order. There are, however, authorities for the view that if the revisional Court finds that real and substantial justice has been done by the order of the appellate Court, though without jurisdiction, it may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in interfering with that order. The authorities taking such view are reported in Mt. Kuti Baru Bibi Vs. Jitendra Nath Roy and Others, ; Somasundaram Pillai and Others Vs. Muthumanicka Nadar. To the same effect is the observation in connection with an application for review passed without jurisdiction in AIR 1954 Mys 147. Mr. Mukherji relied on AIR 1941 Nag 261 for the contrary view. But that case is clearly distinguishable as the suit had been filed beyond the period of limitation, and the question of exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction by a revisional Court, in such circumstances, does not at all arise. I would, therefore, in exercise of my jurisdiction as a Court of revision, refuse to set aside the order of the learned lower Appellate Court as real and substantial justice has been done in the circumstances of this case. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs in the trial Court and in the revisional Court. As the Plaintiff protracted the proceedings in the lower appellate Court, which had no jurisdiction, the Plaintiff is to pay costs of the lower appellate Court to Defendant No. 1. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed