SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) IN an election petition filed by the first respondent herein, challenging the election of the present revision petitioner, to the Zilla parishad, an application - I. A. V.- was filed seeking amendment of the petition. The substance of the amendment was to state that "the 1st respondent (i. e. , the revision petitioner), his agents and followers, by corrupt practice, have caused to vote in the name of others (impersonation) who were not in the village and moreover, one person cannot cast more than one vote which is not permissible". This was rejected by the trial court holding that, (i) in the original petition there was no ground regarding corrupt practice committed by the returned candidate; and the amendment, if allowed, would introduce a new cause; and (ii) afresh petition to set aside the election on this new ground will be time barred and therefore, the plea cannot be permitted to be raised, after the period prescribed for filing the election petition. ( 2 ) THE first respondent filed an appeal, invoking Sec. 158 (2) of the Karnataka Zilla parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats act, 1983, (an Act, which certainly requires a recognised short nomenclature for easy reference, referred hereafter as the Act, to the District Court. The appeal was allowed and the prayer for amendment of the petition was granted. It is unnecessary to examine other contentions of the petitioner. The main contention is that the appeal to the district Court under Sec. 158 (2) of the Act was not maintainable. Sec. 158 (2) reads as follows:-"any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Civil Judge under this Section may within thirty days from the date of such decision or order appeal to the District Judge and the decision of the District Judge on such appeal shall be final". ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the language of Sec. 158 (2) allowing an appeal from "any decision or order", though looks wide, in reality, is restricted to such a decision or order, which substantially affects the right or liability of the parties; when the Election Petition stands not disposed of, it cannot be held that any right or liability of the parties is affected. On the final disposal of the election Petition, any of the aggrieved party, while filing the appeal, may question the order disallowing the amendment of the petition. An order which affects only the procedural rights, is not a decision or order' subject to an appeal under Sec. 15 8 (2) of the act. ( 4 ) I find considerable force in this contention. In Bant Singh GUI Vs. Shanti devi and others (A. I. R. 1967 SC 1360) a provision under Delhi and Ajmer Rent control Act providing for an appeal against 'any decree or order' was construed, as not comprising an order or decision rejecting the prayer to hold the suit as having abated. At page 1362 the Supreme Court quoted an earlier Decision to the effect: "in the context of S. 38 (1) the words 'every order of the Controller made under this Act though very wide, do not include interlocutory orders, which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilites of the parties". Thereafter, it proceeded to say, "the principle was thus recognised that the word 'order' used in such context is not wide enough to include every order, whatever be its nature, and particularly orders which only dispose of interlocutory matters. In the case before us also, all that was done by the application presented by the appellant on the 13th March 1961, was to raise a preliminary issue about the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit had abated by virtue of s. 50 (2) of the Act of 1958. The Court went into that issue and decided it against the appellant. If the decision had been in favour of the appellant and the suit had been dismissed, no doubt there would have been a final order in the suit having the effect of a decree (see the decision of the Full Bench of the Lahore high Court in Ram Charan Das v. Hira nand, Air 1945 Lah 298-FB- ), On the other hand, if as in the present case, it is held that the suit has not abated and its trial is to continue, there is no final order deciding the rights or liabilities of the parties to the suit. The rights and liabilities have yet to be decided after full trial has been gone through. The rights and liabilities have yet to be decided after full trial has been gone through. The decision by the court is only in the nature of a finding on a preliminary issue on which would depend the maintainability of the suit. Such a finding cannot be held to be an order for purposes of S. 34 of the Act of 1952, and, consequently, no appeal against such an order would be maintainable". A Division Bench of this Court applied this principle to a similar, earlier provision for appeal under the Mysore Land Reforms act, reported in Govind and Others Vs. Mary fernandes and Another (1970 (2) Mys. L. J. 466 ). At Para-6, the Court observed;---"an order on an interlocutory application allowing amendment under the Act, cannot, therefore, be construed as one which affects the rights and liabilities of the parties. It is only an interlocutory order, the correctness of which can be questioned in an appeal against the final decision in the main case". ( 5 ) POWER to grant or reject a prayer for amendment of the pleading, is essentially a discretionary power, even under Or. 6 r. 17 cpc (Vide AIR 1957 SC 363 -para-9 ). There cannot be any doubt that, the amendment of a pleading is a procedural matter, and is only an interlocutory action; right or liability of the parties is not decided at this stage and the lis still continues. An election dispute requires early solution and it cannot be the intention of the legislature that at every stage of the litigation, orders made therein should be subjected to the scrutiny of an Appellate court. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the first respondent before the district Court has to be held as not maintainable. Consequently, the appellate judgment is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .