This is a revision against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 21-3-1966, whereby he rejected the appeal of the applicant against the judgment and the decree of the S. D. O. Beawar dated 7-5-65 dismissing the suit of the applicant-plaintiff u/s 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the non-applicant that this application is not maintainable as u/s 175(4) when an application is contested, it has to be treated like a suit and that no revision is maintainable against an appellate order passed against a decree. In support of this contention he relies on Harla vs. State (1966 RRD 6), wherein it was held that, by virtue of the provisions of sub sec. (4) of sec. 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, an application for ejectment which is contested is treated as a suit and the result is a decree. Under the Tenancy Act, a second appeal lies to this Board against decrees, and that being the position, a revision is not competent. In reply, the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in this case a decree was not framed and, therefore this authority is not applicable. He seeks reliance on the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagat Dhish vs. Jawaharlal ( AIR 1961 S.C. 832 ), and argues that for the failure of the trial court to frame a decree, the applicant should not be penalised. He has also argued that there is no specific order on the file stating that the application be tried as a suit and combined with the fact that no decree was framed, it cannot be contended that the first appeal was against a decree and that, therefore, only a second appeal is maintainable, and no revision lies. This argument may have the merit of plausibility, but on a reading of the provisions laid in sub-sec. (4) of sec. 175 coupled with the case was tried in the trial court, this argument would appear to have no substance. Sub-sec. (4) clearly states that when the liability to ejectment is contested, the court shall on the payment of proper court fees treat the application to be a suit and proceed with the case as a suit. (4) of sec. 175 coupled with the case was tried in the trial court, this argument would appear to have no substance. Sub-sec. (4) clearly states that when the liability to ejectment is contested, the court shall on the payment of proper court fees treat the application to be a suit and proceed with the case as a suit. Of course, there is no specific order on record stating that the case may be treated as a suit, but there is no denying the fact that it was tried as a suit, As many as 12 issues were framed and the evidence produced by the contesting parties on each issue was examined before the suit was finally dismissed on 7-5-65. The frame of [the appeal filed against this order in the first appellate Court also clearly mentions that the appeal was being filed against the judgment and decree of the S. D. O. , Beawar dated 7-5-65. Though a copy of the decree was not filed along with the copy of the judgment attached with the memo of appeal, yet this would not alter the nature of the proceedings in the trial court. In fact, the failure of the applicant to file a copy of the decree should have acted as a clog against the applicant in the first appellate court and he should have been directed to obtain a copy of the decree and file it. But this default did not apparently come to the notice of the first appellate court, nor it was seized upon by the defendant. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the case was tried as a suit. As regards the argument that no decree having been framed by the trial court, the rule laid down in the aforesaid Supreme Court authority was attracted and that this court should, in consequence, quash the order of the first appellate court so that the applicant may be enabled to obtain a copy of the decree from the trial court (who may be directed to draw the same), I agree with the learned counsel for the non-applicants that the rule laid down in the aforesaid Supreme Court authority would have been applicable if the applicant had filed a second appeal in this court. In the event of filing a revision, as he has done in the instant case, this rule is not applicable. In the event of filing a revision, as he has done in the instant case, this rule is not applicable. Even it the trial court did not frame a decree, this would not authorise this court to seize the matter in its revisional jurisdiction, when under the law no revision is maintainable, in a matter arising under sub-sec. (4 of sec. 175 whereunder an application for ejectment, which is contested is treated as a suit and the result is a decree. It is rightly argued that the failure of the applicant to attach a copy of the decree along with his appeal in the first appellate court cannot merely be ascribed to the laches of the court and that the applicant also cannot escape responsibility for not having filed a copy of the decree. In any case, he should have filed an appeal and having done so he might have pleaded the failure of the court to have drawn up the decree. At any rate, this revision is not maintainable. This line of argument must prevail. The rule of law is very clear. Under sec. 175(4) an application for ejectment which is contested is treated as a suit and the result is a decree. Under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, a second appeal lies to the Board against decrees and this being the position, a revision is not competent. This application for revision is, therefore, rejected.