JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.85 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal No. 52/15/178 of 1984-85 arising out of original suit number 37 of 1976. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the ASDO Karwi Mau by means of his order dated 19.12.84 accepted the lots prepared by the Lekhpal and ordered to prepare the final decree after the court fee and general stamps were filed. Narbada and others, defendants in the suit u/s 176/178/182 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act preferred an appeal u/s 331 (3) of the Act against this order before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner, who disposed of the appeal on 11.12.85, dismissed the appeal holding that no appeal lies against an order dated 19.12.84. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below decided the appeal without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. His second submission is that if an appeal is not maintainable, it could be converted into a revision. He has strengthened his arguments by citing 1957 RD 406, 1955 RD 189, 1974 RD 124 , 1976 RD (II) 307, 1975 RD 322, 1978 AWC 387 , AIR 1978 Page 299, AIR 1977 All.103. He has further argued that before converting into revision, the court has to examine the grounds and can suo-moto correct the error. Reliance has been placed on 1974 RD, 1975 RD 293 and 1979 AWC 90. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. An appeal against the order dated 19.12.84 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class was filed before the Divisional Commissioner u/s 331 (3) of the Act. It appears from the record that the trial court had ordered for the Dreparation of the decree in accordance with the lots prepared by the Lekhpal. But neither the stamp was filed nor the decree prepared. The learned Additional Commissioner has, therefore, dismissed the appeal holding it pre-mature. I find no illegality in this order. The question was examined in detail in Raj Kumar and another v. Ram Shanker and another, AIR 1973 Patna 434 by the Patna High Court. But neither the stamp was filed nor the decree prepared. The learned Additional Commissioner has, therefore, dismissed the appeal holding it pre-mature. I find no illegality in this order. The question was examined in detail in Raj Kumar and another v. Ram Shanker and another, AIR 1973 Patna 434 by the Patna High Court. His Lordship held that an appeal filed against the preparation of the final decree is not maintainable His Lordship has referred to a Supreme Court decision in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an appeal prior to the final decree being prepared is premature. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not lay down any exception to the General rule of law that if an appeal is filed prior to the preparation of the final decree, it must be held to be premature and consequently not maintainable. 5. The above ruling applies to the present case with equal force. As regards the conversion of the appeal into revision, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. It appears from the record that the appellant did not make any request for the conversion of the appeal into revision despite seven dates. It has been held in Het Ram Narain Alias Udit Narain v. Collector Aligarh, 1939 RD 772 that the practise of filing an appeal and then, when it is found by the court as no appeal lies, requesting the court to treat it as a revision, is not always desirable. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a number of rulings. In view of the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the rulings are not of any help to the appellant. 6. In the result, this appeal fails and is consequently dismissed.