JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division recommending that the revision filed by Ram Narain and Gaya Prasad against the order dated January 6, 1973 passed by the Judicial Officer (Revenue) Lucknow may be allowed and the order under revision set aside. 2. The revisionists had filed a suit under Section 176 U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act. Issue No. 5 framed by the trial court was to the effect whether the suit was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. A prayer was made to the effect that this issue should be decided as a preliminary issue. The trial court has, however, rejected this prayer by the order dated January 6, 1973 which has been challenged in the present revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are that not only a suit but the defence would also be debarred in challenging the correctness of the entries made during consolidation proceedings and that the trial court ought to have decided issue No. 5 as a preliminary issue, and further that the trial court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in refusing to decide issue No. 5 which is a purely legal issue as a preliminary issue. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that no revision lies against an interlocutory order. The learned counsel for the revisionists has, however, cited S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon A.I.R 1964 S.C. 497. in which a learned bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "The expression 'case' is a word of comprehensive import. It includes civil proceedings other than suits, and is not restricted by anything contained in the section to the entirety of the proceedings in a civil court. To interpret the expression 'case' as an entire proceeding would be to impose a restriction upon the exercise of powers of superintendence with the jurisdiction to issue writs, and the supervisory jurisdiction are not subject and may result in certain cases in denying relief to an aggrieved litigant where it is most needed, and may result in the perpetration of gross injustice." 6. Moreover, Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not even mention the words 'case decided'. Moreover, Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not even mention the words 'case decided'. It uses the words 'suit or proceeding decided', which has even a wider scope. I would, therefore, hold that a revision would lie even against an interlocutory order in a suit or proceeding under the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act. 7. As regards the question whether in the present case issue No. 5 should have been decided as a preliminary issue, the learned counsel for the opposite party has cited 'Beni Prasad v. Damodar Prasad 1977 A.W.C. (Rev.) 37. in which it has been held that a mixed issue of law and fact need not be decided as a preliminary issue. In that case it was held that the issue regarding the bar of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was a mixed issue of law and fact. 8. The question of the bar of Section 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act itself is a question which may differ from one case to another. In certain cases it may be a pure issue of law and in another, a mixed issue of law and fact. The learned Additional Commissioner has in his reference discussed this matter in great length and has come to the conclusion that in the present case the issue No. 5 was legal and jurisdictional. The learned trial court has been led away by the consideration that if there has been fraud during the consolidation proceedings then the effect of fraud has to be seen. It was certainly open to the trial court to decided issue No. 5 as a preliminary issue and record the decision that the bar under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act did not come into play because of fraud. But it was not open to the trial court to make a presumption that there was a fraud and on the basis of this presumption to refuse to decide the issue as a preliminary issue. No injustice would be caused to either party if the court decides the issue No. 5 as a preliminary issue. But it was not open to the trial court to make a presumption that there was a fraud and on the basis of this presumption to refuse to decide the issue as a preliminary issue. No injustice would be caused to either party if the court decides the issue No. 5 as a preliminary issue. On the other hand both the parties will be saved from unnecessary harassment and litigation if the court comes to the conclusion that the bar of Sec. 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had come into play and the revenue court had therefore no jurisdiction. No injustice would also be caused to any part if the court, on the other hand decides that the bar under Section 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had not come into play as the parties can thereafter agitate the matter further. I would fully uphold the view of the learned Additional Commissioner that the trial court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to decide issue No. 5 as a preliminary issue. 9. Accepting the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order, and direct the trial court to decide issue No. 5 as a preliminary issue.