JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member- This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20-2-79 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut, dismissing the revision against the trial court decree dated 23-12-77 in a case under Section 176, Z.A. & L.R. Act, on the ground of non-maintainability. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection that the revision filed before the Board as well as the revision before the learned first appellate court were not maintainable and so no abatement under Section 5(2), U.P.C.H. Act is possible, as prayed in application dated 19-7-84. 4. As has been observed by the learned first appellate court in its judgment dated 20-2-79, the revisionist had filed the revision under great misconception for while he pleaded that his second appeal could not be entertained as being incompetent and so he filed this revision, in fact the revision was not filed before the Court which would entertain the second appeal but before the first appellate court who had already heard and decided the first appeal against the same trial court decree dated 23-12-77. Therefore, clearly under Section 333 the revision was not maintainable because it was not a case where an appeal lies but has not been preferred. It may be added that the words "referred to in Section 333" occurring in Section 333-A amount to limiting the scope of Section 333-A to the same category of cases as can be considered under Section 333. 5. It is observed that neither the present revision nor the revision before the first appellate court were filed against the dismissal of the first appeal on 24-8-78. The pleading that second appeal was not filed, would entitle him to file a revision in the Board against the dismissal of first appeal on 24-8-78, but instead the revision was filed in the first appellate court against the trial court decree and it was rightly held not maintainable and dismissed by the first appellate court. 6. I do not agree with the argument by the learned counsel for the applicant that it was only a review before the learned Additional Commissioner, because the grounds given in the revision here do not indicate such position. 7. 6. I do not agree with the argument by the learned counsel for the applicant that it was only a review before the learned Additional Commissioner, because the grounds given in the revision here do not indicate such position. 7. If revision is dismissed as incompetent or ab initio not maintainable, a further revision against such dismissal will not establish continuity with the suit for any purpose like abatement under Section 5(2), U.P.C.H. Act. Even the revision filed before the learned first appellate court in this case would not establish any such continuity. I, therefore, find no case for abatement under Section 5(2), U.P.C.H. Act. 8. For the same reasons as above, the present revision also is found not maintainable. Further, the learned first appellate court is found to have exercised jurisdiction without any illegality or material irregularity, and this revision is found to be without any force and is hereby dismissed.