JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, Member. - This is a Revision Petition against the orders dated October 11, 1968 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class, Gorakhpur in a case under Section 295-A of the U.P. Tenancy Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Ram Autar was occupancy tenant and Ram Dayal was zamindar of the disputed land. Ram Dayal got Ram Autar ejected under Section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act on March 5, 1945. Thereafter, Act X of 1947 came into force and it provided for reinstatement of ejected tenants under Section 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Before the enforcement of Act X of 1947, Ram Autar died. Gorakh Prasad claiming to be the adopted son of Ram Autar led an application under Section 27 on December 12, 1947 for reinstatement. On September 14, 1948, the application of Gorakh Prasad was rejected on the ground that adoption had not been proved. In appeal, the Collector remanded the case observing that the question of adoption was in dispute in a declaratory suit and hence the proceedings under Section 27 be stayed till the decision of declaratory suit. The declaratory suit under Section 59, U.P. Tenancy Act was dismissed by the trial court. The Commissioner remanded the case to the trial court for decision afresh. The declaratory suit was pending before the trial court when consolidation started. That declaratory suit was, therefore, stayed under Section 12(5) of the U.P.C.H. Act. During consolidation, it was held on July 19, 1962 in the title suit that Gorakh Prasad was the adopted son of Ram Autar. The names of Ganesh, Pyarey and Phool Deo were, however, entered over the plots during consolidation, Gorakh Prasad filed an objection under Section 12/24 of the U.P.C.H. Act for striking out their names. He filed an application under Section 5 also. The objection of Gorakh Prasad was dismissed as time barred and the decision of C.O. was upheld by the D.D.C. 3. On June 26, 1967, Gorakh Prasad applied for reopening the proceedings under Section 27. Ram Dayal filed objection against reopening of the said proceedings. 4. On October 11, 1968, the trial court rejected the objection of Ram Dayal observing that the case under Section 295A will proceed and it would be decided on merits. 5. Ram Dayal filed revision against the order dated October 11, 1968. Ram Dayal filed objection against reopening of the said proceedings. 4. On October 11, 1968, the trial court rejected the objection of Ram Dayal observing that the case under Section 295A will proceed and it would be decided on merits. 5. Ram Dayal filed revision against the order dated October 11, 1968. On January 9, 1959, the Additional Commissioner recommended that the revision be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that sub-section(6) of Section 27 of Act X of 1947 provides appeal against final order only and not against an interlocutory order. He contended that the order dated October 11, 1968 passed by the trial court reopening the proceedings being an interlocutory order was not appealable and hence revision lay under Section 275 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. He placed reliance on the case Niranjan v. Chhotey, 1956 R.D. 332 in which it was held that an order passed on an application for review of order of reinstatement under Section 27 was not appealable. He further argued that, in any case, the order dated October 11, 1968 passed by the trial court amounts to 'case decided' and hence revision lies under Section 275. He placed reliance on the case Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, ALJ 1963 (S.C.) 1068 in which it was held that an order holding that the suit was not maintainable amounts to 'case decided'. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that under Section 27, sub-clause 6 of Act X of 1947 every order is appealable. He contended that the order dated October 11, 1968 passed by the trial court was appealable. He further argued that Revision under Section 275 of the U.P. Tenancy Act was maintainable only when no appeal lay. He contended that in the present case the order was appealable and hence no revision lay under Section 275. He further argued that the order passed by the trial court reopening the proceedings does not amount to 'case decided'. He further argued that in the case Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig, F.J. Dillon, ALJ 1963 (S.C.) 1068 the court had held that the plaintiff's suit for recovery of money advanced to the defendant was not maintainable. He further argued that the order passed by the trial court reopening the proceedings does not amount to 'case decided'. He further argued that in the case Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig, F.J. Dillon, ALJ 1963 (S.C.) 1068 the court had held that the plaintiff's suit for recovery of money advanced to the defendant was not maintainable. He further argued that the order in that case holding the suit to be not maintainable had finally concluded the matter and hence the Supreme Court held that the order amounted to a 'case decided'. He contended that in the present case the position is quite different in as much as the trial court has simply reopened the proceedings and the case remains to be decided on merits. He further contended that this order cannot amount to a case decided and, therefore, in any case revision is not maintainable. 8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. Sub-clause 6 of Section 27 of U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act X of 1947 provides that:- "An appeal against an order passed under this section shall lie to the Collector, whose appealable order shall be final." 9. From the perusal of sub-clause 6 of Section 27 it is obvious that this clause does not make any distinction between final and interlocutory orders. The word order in sub-clause 6 cannot be interpreted to mean final order only and not an interlocutory order. The position, therefore, come to this that every order passed under Section 27 is appealable. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that sub-section(6) of Section 27 applies to final orders only is without any force. In the case Niranjan v. Chhotey, 1956 R.D. 332 the learned Judicial Member observed that Section 27 did not speak about review or an order passed on review. He, therefore, held that Section 27 of Act X of 1947 was not attracted and no appeal lay from an order passed on an application made for the review of the order of reinstatement under Section 27. This ruling does not apply to the present case at all. Section 275 of the U.P. Tenancy Act provides that revision is maintainable only when no appeal lies. In the present case the order dated October 11, 1968 was appealable. Under the circumstances, revision was not maintainable under Section 275. This ruling does not apply to the present case at all. Section 275 of the U.P. Tenancy Act provides that revision is maintainable only when no appeal lies. In the present case the order dated October 11, 1968 was appealable. Under the circumstances, revision was not maintainable under Section 275. In the case Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, ALJ 1963 (S.C.) 1068 their Lordships held that an interlocutory order holding that the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of money advanced to the defendant was not maintainable must be recorded as a 'case which has been decided'. In that case the court had passed an interlocutory order holding that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable and it finally concluded the matter and consequently their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that such an order must be regarded as a 'case which had been decided'. In the present case the position is, however, quite different. The trial court has not finally concluded the matter out has simply reopened the proceedings and the case remains to be decided on merits. Such an order cannot be regarded as a 'case decided'. That being so, no revision lies under Section 275 if the U.P. Tenancy Act. In view of the above discussion the revision is dismissed. 10. C.C.O. No. 3074 for R.D.