JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - A title suit brought by one Saunti Panda in the Court of the Munsif, Kendrapara was dismissed for default and an application under Order 9, Rule 4, CPC was filed by him and it was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 153 of 1968. During the pendency of the said application Saunti died on 17-8-1968. Niranjan, Kamadeb and Dolagobinda filed an application to be substituted in place of the deceased on the ground that they were the heirs of the deceased being grandsons. This application was resisted by the opposite parties in the said proceeding and they contended that the persons who applied to be substituted were not the legal representatives. The genealogy itself was disputed. While the substitution matter was pending consideration, Pahali Panda, the present Petitioner came forward claiming to be the legal representative and wanted his own substitution. According to him, he was the only heir of the deceased. A different genealogy was relied upon by him to work out his status. 2. An enquiry was made by the learned trial Judge. Four witnesses were examined on one side and five on the other and some documents were also produced. In a long order the learned Munsif discussed the rival claims and ultimately came to hold that Pahali was not the legal representative and directed substitution of Niranjan Kar and two others in his place. Against this order the present Civil Revision has been directed. 3. The real dispute in this case can be apparent only when the respective genealogies are referred to. Genealogy relied upon by the Petitioner. Doubt table missing Chakradbar Panda. Harekrusbna Naran Mayadhar Pabali N 80th (died issue less) Judhistir Bhajani Rama Janakar Kini (daughter)Saunti (died)(died on 17-8-1968) Khati Nidhi (daughter)(died issueless) Dadbi Suka (died) Mathuri Bata. Genealogy relied upon by the opposite parties. Govinda Harekrushna Panda Bhajani Mathuri Kini (daughter) Dhruba Kamdeb Santosh From the two genealogies it would thus appear that while according to the Petitioner Kini is not the sister of Rama, of Saunti father according to the opposite parties, Kini being Rama's sister the opposite parties would come in as legal representatives. The Petitioner Pahali claims as an agnate. The opposite parties claim that there is no agnate to come in and as such cognates would succeed. Judhistir Janakar Bata. Dadhi Suka (died) Ramo. Saunti Khati Nidbi (daughter)(issueless) Niranjan Dolo. 4. The Petitioner Pahali claims as an agnate. The opposite parties claim that there is no agnate to come in and as such cognates would succeed. Judhistir Janakar Bata. Dadhi Suka (died) Ramo. Saunti Khati Nidbi (daughter)(issueless) Niranjan Dolo. 4. The learned Munsif has examined the evidence at considerable length. Mr. Sahu during the hearing of this revision emphasised upon certain errors of record committed by the trial Court. Those are as specified in grounds Nos. 3, 4 and 5. In view of the contention raised I thought it necessary to scan the entire evidence particularly of the witnesses referred to and I am not in a position to hold that the ultimate conclusion of the learned trial Judge is vitiated. At any rate, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure, a different conclusion cannot be reached on the question of the disputed genealogies. The conclusion of the learned trial Judge cannot also be said to be vitiated by any material irregularity. It is not disputed that the trial Court had the jurisdiction to make the enquiry in the manner be has done because such an enquiry is enjoined under Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code. 5. Mr. Mohanty for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision on the ground that the order of the learned Munsif is not a case decided and as such the revision does Dot lie. He relied upon the recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldevdas Shivlal and Another Vs. Filmistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. and Others and Ors. Therein it has been stated: This Court observed in Major S.S. Khanna Vs. Brig. F.J. Dillon that the expression 'case' is a word of comprehensive import: it includes a civil proceeding and is not restricted by anything contained in Section 115 of the Code to the entirety of the proceeding in a Civil Court. To interpret the expression 'case' as an entire proceeding only and not a part of the proceeding imposes an unwarranted restriction on the exercise of powers of superintendence and may result in certain cases in denying relief to the aggrieved litigant where it is most needed and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice. To interpret the expression 'case' as an entire proceeding only and not a part of the proceeding imposes an unwarranted restriction on the exercise of powers of superintendence and may result in certain cases in denying relief to the aggrieved litigant where it is most needed and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice. 'But it was not decided in Major S.S. Khanna's case that every order of the Court in the course of a suit amounts to a case decided. A case may be said to be decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right of obligation of the parties in controversy every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case the Plaintiff died and who would step into his shoes as Plaintiff was being determined by the trial Court under Order 22, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure. A decision reached in such an enquiry must stand on a different footing than the order which was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In the present case, the status of the claimant to rank as Plaintiff was under consideration and a decision on that aspect of the matter is indeed very vital to the litigation. The conclusion on such a question is indeed an adjudication for the purposes of the suit of a right of the party and therefore, the preliminary objection of Mr. Mohanty cannot be sustained on the basis of the aforesaid decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. 6. Even though the preliminary objection is overruled no interference in this case is possible on account of the fact that the learned trial Judge had full jurisdiction to decide the matter and his conclusions are not vitiated by any material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order he had still the right to establish his title in a regular suit and the present order would not stand as res judicata in the matter. 7. I would accordingly uphold the order and dismiss this revision. Parties would bear their own costs.