JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member - This is a reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Rameshwar Dayal in a case under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, be rejected. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that Ram Sanehi had filed a suit for declaration against Rameshwar Dayal and others claiming sole Bhumidhari rights in the land in suit, that the suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds including the ground that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and that it was also barred by the principle of res judicata and estoppel that the trial Court framed issues Nos. 12 and 14 on these points and treated these issues as preliminary ones and held that the suit was not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and it was also not barred by estoppel and res judicata. The defendant, Rameshwar Dayal, felt aggrieved by this order and he filed a revision petition in the Court of the Commissioner and after hearing this revision petition, the learned Additional Commissioner, on 17-6-1974, made a recommendation to the Board that the revision petition be dismissed. The learned Additional Commissioner was of the opinion that the revision petition was not maintainable and the he had relied on 1970 R.D. 352 and 1971 R.D. 10. In 1970 R.D. 352, it was held that the finding of the trial Court on one issue is not a decision of any suit or proceeding within the meaning of Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and hence no revision lies against that finding. In 1971 R.D. 10, the same learned Member, Shri P.P. Bhatnagar, held that the finding of the trial Court on one issue is not a decision of any suit or proceeding with in the meaning of Section 333 of the Act and that no revision lies against the finding. 3. As against this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 1976 R.D. 170 and 1979 R.D. 221. As far as 1976 R.D. 170 is concerned, it deals with dismissal of appeal and lays down that no appeal can be dismissed because the order appealed against had already been given effect. This ruling does not apply at all. 3. As against this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 1976 R.D. 170 and 1979 R.D. 221. As far as 1976 R.D. 170 is concerned, it deals with dismissal of appeal and lays down that no appeal can be dismissed because the order appealed against had already been given effect. This ruling does not apply at all. The learned counsel has given a wrong citation. As far as 1979 R.D. 221 is concerned. It held that "the revision before the District Judge was directed only against an order disposing of an issue viz. whether the suit is cognizable by the Civil Court. On the pleadings of the parties, the District Judge was only called upon to decide whether the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court or by the Revenue Court. The Court below exceeded its jurisdiction in giving a finding not only on that issue, but in pronouncing judgement in the suit itself giving concluded finding on several disputed questions without a proper trial. "A perusal of this ruling shows that in a case when the trial Court had decided only one issue it was held that a revision was competent against the finding on that issue. In 1970 A.I.R. S.C. 1468, the Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot in a revision against an order of the trial Court disposing of an issue try other issues arising in the case even if the parties agree to such a course. Thus the Supreme Court also envisaged that when a trial Court decides only one or two issues in the case, a revision was competent against the order of the trial Court deciding a limited number of issues. In view of the rulings of the High Court and the Supreme Court, referred to above, the matter appears to be concluded and it can be said with certainty that in a case where the trial Court gives a finding on only one or two issues treating them as preliminary ones a revision against that finding lies. Hence, I hold that in the instant case the revision was competent. 4. In the ruling, 1970 R.D. 352, the learned Member, Shri P.P. Bhatnagar, did not cite any authority in support of his view, but only gave the reasoning that the finding of the trial Court on one issue is not a decision of a suit or proceedings. Hence, I hold that in the instant case the revision was competent. 4. In the ruling, 1970 R.D. 352, the learned Member, Shri P.P. Bhatnagar, did not cite any authority in support of his view, but only gave the reasoning that the finding of the trial Court on one issue is not a decision of a suit or proceedings. In the second ruling, 1971 R.D. 10, the learned Member, Shri P.P. Bhatnagar, referred to a Supreme Court decision reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 153. I have gone through this ruling, but it no where says that revision will not lie against a finding on one or two issues only. The Supreme Court held in that case that the revisional Court will not interfere in certain matter. These two are quite different things, i.e. it is one thing whether a revision lies or not and it is quite another thing whether the revisional Court will interfere with the impugned order or not. The Supreme Court in that case did not say that the revision does not lie, but only opined that in the particular circumstances of that case the High Court could not interfere in the order of the trial Court. This ruling did not lay down that no revision lies against the order of the trial Court when it decides one or two issues only. 5. I may here refer to the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon 1964 A.I.R. S.C. page 497. In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the word "case" was not restricted to litigation in the nature of a suit, but included all proceedings in which the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is invoked for the determination of a claim or right legally enforceable and that a revision was maintainable against interlocutory orders passed in a suit. The Supreme Court held in that case that a finding that a suit was not maintainable was open to revision. 6. The words 'suit or proceedings decided' mentioned in Section 333 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are wide enough to include finding on one or two issues. The Supreme Court held in that case that a finding that a suit was not maintainable was open to revision. 6. The words 'suit or proceedings decided' mentioned in Section 333 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are wide enough to include finding on one or two issues. To make the matter more clear the explanation to Section 115 C.P.C. inserted by C.P.C. (amendment) Act, 1976 lays down that "In this section, the expression 'any case which has been decided' includes any order made or any order deciding any issue in the course of a suit or other proceedings." The result is that a revision petition lies against finding of a Court on preliminary issues. The revision petition was maintainable and it should have been decided by the learned Additional Commissioner, Disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I send the case back to him for decision of the revision on merits.