JUDGMENT Ashwini Kumar, M. - This Revision Petition under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has been filed by Sant Prasad against the order dated November 27, 1974 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in a mutation case. 2. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and seen the the record of the case. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the death of his father Hira Lal in February, 1970 Gaya Din sought mutation of his name over 14 plots of land record in the tenancy of Sita Ram by way of succession. Sant Prasad entered contest saying that he is in possession over 12 of the plots on the basis of a sal deed dated May 20, 1969 executed by Hira Lal in his favour. Through his order dated March 28, 1973, the S.D.O. rejected Gaya Din's mutation application and ordered mutation of the name of Sant Prasad over the 12 plots sold by Hira Lal to him. Gaya Din filed a revision petition against the S.D.O.'s order, and the same is still pending in the Addl. Commissioner's court. On July 9, 1973, Gaya Din moved an application for amendment of his mutation application so as to delete two plots Nos. 88 and 91 from the same. Through his impugned order dated November 27, 1974, the Addl. Commissioner allowed the application on payment of Rs. 20/- as costs. Sant Prasad has come up in revision against this order of the Addl. Commissioner. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite party raises the preliminary objection that the Addl. Commissioner's impugned order is an interlocutory order, and hence no revision petition would lie against it under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 4. As against the above, the learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the Addl. Commissioner's impugned order was passed under order VI, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code which applies to proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, and hence the impugned order amounts to a case decided, with the result that present revision petition under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is maintainable. He cites Rama Shanker Tiwari v. Mahadeo and others 1968 A.L.J. 109 in support of his contention. 5. He cites Rama Shanker Tiwari v. Mahadeo and others 1968 A.L.J. 109 in support of his contention. 5. In the Ruling cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist a Full Beach of the Hon'ble High Court has held that an order passed under Order VI, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code allowing or refusing to allow amendment of pleadings is a case decided within the meaning of that expression in section 115, Civil Procedure Code. This Ruling was made by the Hon'ble High Court in the year 1967. Since then, Section 115, Civil Procedure Code has been amended so as to provide that the High Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where the order would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings, or where the order, if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. In view of this amendment to section 115, Civil Procedure Code it cannot now perhaps be said that an order allowing or refusing to allow amendment of pleadings would amount to a case decided. In any case, Section 115, Civil Procedure Code does not hold good as far as proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act has itself provided section 219 vesting the Board of Revenue with supreviously revisionary jurisdiction. It has been the consistent view of the Board of Revenue that no revision petition lies against interlocutory orders which do not amount to a case decided. In the present case, Gaya Din sought amendment of his mutation application so as to delete two plots from the sale deed. Admittedly these two plots bearing Nos. 88 and 91 are not included in the 12 plots alleged to have been sold by Hira Lal to Sant Prasad, revisionist, on May 20, 1969. Therefore, it cannot even be said that Addl. Commissioner's impugned order allowing amendment of Gaya Din's mutation application would occasion any failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to Sant Prasad. Gaya Din's revision petition against the S.D.O.'s order dated March 28, 1973 has yet to be decided by the Addl. Commissioner, and Sant Prasad will get due opportunity to put up his case. In these entire circumstances, the a present revision petition is not maintainable and i reject it as such. The Addl. Gaya Din's revision petition against the S.D.O.'s order dated March 28, 1973 has yet to be decided by the Addl. Commissioner, and Sant Prasad will get due opportunity to put up his case. In these entire circumstances, the a present revision petition is not maintainable and i reject it as such. The Addl. Commissioner shall proceed further to decide Gaya Din's revision petition which is still pending decision in his court.