JUDGMENT D.D. Varma, M. - This is a revision against the order dated 9-10-1990 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur dismissing the revision against the order dated 15-2-1990 passed by the trial court in a suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and have also gone through the judgments of the trial court and that of the Additional Commissioner. Thu trial court had decided two issues of law, one regarding the suit being barred under Section 49 of the C.H. Act and the other regarding maintainability of the suit and finding enough justification for proceeding further in the case has subsequently fixed 8-3-1990 for the evidence of the plaintiff. The learned Additional Commissioner before whom a revision was filed against the above said order of the trial court, discussed the order of the trial court in detail and found nothing illegal in the order. The revision before this court under Section 333 is the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is against this order of the Additional Commissioner. The scope of a revision under Section 333 is restricted by following three conditions : (a) where the subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law, or (b) it has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) it has acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the particular case the power exercised by the revisional court does not suffer from any of the lecuna mentioned above. The intent of Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is not to multiplicate the process of litigation by interfering with it at any and every stage but to correct any patent and substantive mistake committed by the subordinate court which may prove fatal to the ultimate cause of the suit. The Present revision is not an example of this type. The revisionist, in any case, has the option of letting the trial court take a final decision on his plaint and subsequently go in appeal or revision as the case may be. I, therefore, consider this Revision application to be not maintainable and the application is, therefore, rejected summarily.