CHANDRA PRAKASH, J. This is an application in revision under Section 115, C. P. C. against the order dated January 25, 1972 of Shri U. C. Dikshit, II Additional Civil Judge, Agra, allowing ad ditional evidence to be taken on behalf of the defendants opposite parties. The facts leading to this application are not disputed and may be narrated as follows. The plaintiffs applicants filed a suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the plot _of which the plaintiffs claimed to be the Bhumidhars and for the recovery of Ks. 500 as price of the crops alleged to have been cut and removed by the defendants. The defendants resisted the claim on various grounds. After taking evidence of the parties the Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs claim was correct and accordingly a dec ree was passed in their favour. Against that decree the defendants filed an appeal in the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge, Agra. During the course of the ap peal the defendants moved an application 34-C for filing some docu ments in order to point out certain mistakes that have crept in the documents filed by them before. After hearing the parties the Court below allowed the application 34-C and allowed the defendants to file additional evidence in the case. Against the above order the plaintiffs applicants have come up in revision before me, and have questioned the legality or validity of the order passed by the Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by the defendants oppo site parties that the order of the Court below does not amount to a case decided and as such it is not revisable under Section 115, C. P. C. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case I have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection taken by the opposite parties must prevail. Section 115, C. P. C. is as follows:- "the High Court or District Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court or District Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court or District Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: Provided that nothing in this section shall be constrused to em power the District Court to call for the record of any case arising out of an original suit of the value of twenty thousand rupees or above. " The contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties that by allow ing additional evidence to the defendants opposite parties the Court below has not decided any case either the whole of it or any part of it and as such no revision lies. The learned counsel for the opposite parties drew my attention to the case in Harvenchal Kunwar v. Kanhai Lal 4 Indian Cases 878 in which it has held as follows: "no application for revision lies against an interlocutory order which does not determine the case but which is only made with the object of collecting materials upon which the case is to be determined hereafter. The Word case in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, must ordinarily mean the whole case. But where there are in dependent proceedings arising out of a case, such as a proceeding "to restore a case dismissed in default, or to set aside an ex parte decree, for which the Legislature has provided an independent remedy or a different procedure, such proceeding may by a case within the meaning of this section. Any orders on matters arising incidentally in the course of the hearing of such proceeding, the object of which is to bring on the record or to exclude from it, materials upon which its decision is to be based, are not by themselves decisions in a case which can be revised until the case is finally concluded. Any orders on matters arising incidentally in the course of the hearing of such proceeding, the object of which is to bring on the record or to exclude from it, materials upon which its decision is to be based, are not by themselves decisions in a case which can be revised until the case is finally concluded. An order by the appellate Court calling upon the Court below to record and send up certain evidence is not the decision of a case within the meaning of Section 115 and is, consequently, not open to revision. " The observations in the above case that the word case in Section 115, C. P. C. must ordinarily mean the whole case was not approved by the Supreme Court in a later case Major S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 497. But the Supreme Court, as will be noticed presently, cannot be said to have over-ruled the last paragraph quoted in the above ruling. The learned counsel for the opposite parties also relied on Gaya Singh v. Name Singh A. I. R. 1920 Patna 266 in which it was held as follows: - "if an appellate Court makes a mistake in law in directing evi dence to be tendered before it which it is not competent to re ceive in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, it commits an error of law, but that will not give the party aggrieved by the order the right to invoke the interference of the High Court under Section 115, C. P. C. " The above ruling also supports the defendants opposite parties. On behalf of the applicants reliance was placed in Major S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 497 in which it was held as follows: - "the power of the High Court under Section 115 is exercisable in respect of any case which has been decided. The expression case is not defined in the Code, nor in the General Clauses Act. It is undoubtedly not restricted to a litigation in the nature of a suit in a Civil Court. It includes a proceeding in a Civil Court in which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked for the deter mination of some claim or right legally enforceable. It is undoubtedly not restricted to a litigation in the nature of a suit in a Civil Court. It includes a proceeding in a Civil Court in which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked for the deter mination of some claim or right legally enforceable. The meaning of the expression case must be sought in the na ture of the jurisdiction conferred by Section 115, and the purpose for which the High Courts were invested with it. The expression case is a word of comprehensive import: it in cludes civil proceedings other than suits, and is not restricted by anything contained in the section to the entirety of the proceed ing in a civil court. To interpret the expression case as an entire proceeding only and not a part of a proceeding would be to impose a restriction upon the exercise of powers of superinten dence to which the jurisdiction to issue writs, and the supervisory jurisdiction arc not subject and, may result in certain cases in denying relief to an aggrieved litigant where it is most needed, and may result in perpetration of gross injustice. The expres sion case includes a suit, but in ascertaining the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court, there would be no warrant for equating it with a suit alone. Once it is granted that the expression case includes a part of a case, there is no escape from the conclusion that revisional jur isdiction of the High Court may be exercised irrespective of the question whether an appeal lies from the ultimate decree or or der passed in the suit. Any other view would impute to the Legislature an intention to restrict the exercise of this salutary jurisdiction to these comparatively unimportant suits and pro ceedings in which the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is excluded for reasons of public policy. Nor is the expression in which no appeal lies thereto susceptible of the interpretation that it excludes the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction when an appeal may be competent from the final order. The use of_ the word in is not intended to distinguish orders passed in proceed ings not subject to appeal from the final adjudication from whose from which no appeal lies. The use of_ the word in is not intended to distinguish orders passed in proceed ings not subject to appeal from the final adjudication from whose from which no appeal lies. If an appeal lies against the adjudi cation directly to the High Court, or to another Court from the decision of which an appeal lies to the High Court, it has no po wer to exercise its revisional jurisdiction, but where the decision itself is not appealable to the High Court directly or indirectly, exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court would not be deemed excluded. " The above ruling over-ruled the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Buddhulal v. Mewa Ram A. I. R. 1921 All. 1. The Supreme Court in the above ruling has simply widened the scope of the word case contem plated by Section 115, C. P. C. and it has held that the word case is not confined to the entire case but also to the disposal of the part of it. In the above ruling of the Supreme Court the trial court held that the suit on the allegations contained in the plaint was not maintain able. The Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the fact that no formal order for dismissal had been passed by the trial court the finding almost amounted to a disposal of the entire case and to the dismissal of the case. It will thus be seen that the case Major S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 497 is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The above Supreme Court ruling was referred to by the Sup reme Court subsequently in a later case Baldevdas v. Filmistan Dis tributors A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 406. It was specifically observed in paragraph 10 of Baldeo dass case A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 406 as under: - "but it was not decided in Major S. S, Khannas case A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 497 that every order of the Court in the course of a suit amounts to a case decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy, every or der in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. " It will thus follow that every interlocutory order in a case will not amount to a case decided. In the ruling Baldevdas v. Filmistan Dis tributors A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 406 the trial Court disallowed certain questions, i. e. , the court has disallowed a part of evidence in the case. The ruling Baldevdas v. Filmistan Distributors A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 406 is, therefore, more applicable to the facts of the present case in which the additional evidence has been allowed. On behalf of the applicants reference was also sought to Dharmashi v. Patel Kadva A. I. R. 1966 Guj. 302. This ruling no doubt, supports the appli cants but it is in conflict with the Division Bench cases Gaya Singh v. Name Singh A. I. R. 1920 Patna 266 and Havenchal Kunwar 4 Indian Cases 878 and with respect will follow the Division Bench cases. Reference was also sought on behalf of the applicants to R. S. Tiwari v. Mahadeo 1968 A. L. J. 109. This case is distinguishable on facts as it re lated to Order VI, rule 17, C. P. C. regarding the amendments of the plaint. The lower appellate court has simply allowed certain additional evidence to be taken. It has not decided the case at all either the whole of it or any part of it. It is possible that notwithstanding the additional evidence allowed by the Court below may maintain the decree in favour of the applicants. At any rate, when the first appeal is decided the aggrieved party will have right of second appeal and in that case the questions of errors of law, if any, on the point of allow ing additional evidence or not will be decided. As already observed above, at present there is nothing against the applicants which has been decided so far, in order to make out a case contemplated by Sec tion 115, C. P. C. For the reasons given above, I am of opinion that the prelimi nary objection taken by the opposite parties has force and the appli cation in revision is dismissed; but there will be no order as to costs. .