JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. 1. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the order dated 411992 passed by the trial court, which had rejected the application (C60) filed by the applicant for riling the original Cheque through which payment was sought to be made to the opposite party. 2. The opposite party is landlady of the house, which is in occupation of the applicant as a tenant. Her suit for the eviction of the applicant from the premises in question is pending in the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow as S.C.C. Suit No. 77 of 1988. 3. It is not disputed that the defence of the applicant has been struck off. 4. The opposite party in support of her case has examined her husband, Sri C.P. John as P.W. 1. He is still under crossexamination. It was during the course of his crossexamination that an application was given by the applicant for bringing the original cheque on record. 5. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 4192, and as pointed out earlier, the present revision is directed against this order. 6. The applicant has tried to show that he was justified in moving the application for bringing the original cheque on record so that the same could be put to P.W. 1, who is still under crossexamination, as the opposite party had herself filed as part of the documentary evidence, a Photostat copy of the front face of the said cheque, which has already been admitted in evidence. It is contended that the cheque was refused by the Bank and consequently the opposite party herself had sent the original cheque back to the defendant. It is pointed out that the endorsement of the Bank on the back of the cheque, specially, the date on which the endorsement was made, is extremely material in order to expose the falsity of the case of the opposite party. 7. Sri Umesh Chandra, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party, has raised a preliminary objection that the revision is not maintainable inasmuch the order dated 4192 does not amount to a case decided. 8. 7. Sri Umesh Chandra, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party, has raised a preliminary objection that the revision is not maintainable inasmuch the order dated 4192 does not amount to a case decided. 8. Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 provides as under: Section 25 Revision of decree and orders of Court of Small Causes The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. 9. A perusal of the provisions, quoted above, will indicate that it is only against a case decided by a decree or order that a revision will lie under Section 25 of the Act. 10. The U.P. Amendment introduced in Section 25 of the Act does not alter this position and the revision would lie against an order or decree by which the case is decided. 11. By the impugned order dated 4192, it is the application of the defendant for filing the original cheque, which has been rejected. This order does not decide a case. 12. It is, as a matter of fact, an order passed during the progress of the proceedings of the suit which is still pending and has not yet been decided. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision of this Court in S.D. Jain and another v. Rakesh Jain and others AIR 1986 All 30 . This decision has been rendered in respect of the provisions contained in Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure under which, also a revision would lie against an order by which the case is decided. In this case the application for crossexamination of the deponent of an affidavit was rejected by the trial court and it was this order which was challenged before the High Court which held as under: The mere fact that an application for seeking a crossexamination of a deponent is rejected does not decide any right or obligation between the parties. It is only a step towards the final adjudication of the case. In the circumstances, in my opinion, it does not amount to a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 14. It is only a step towards the final adjudication of the case. In the circumstances, in my opinion, it does not amount to a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 14. It may be pointed out that in Kailash Singh v. Agarwal Export Corporation (1984 All LJ 30) this Court had interpreted the words case decided and had held as under: Orders passed merely for the progress of a proceeding are not orders, deciding a case and would accordingly not fall within the meaning of expression, case decided. They are only steps towards the final adjudication of the case, and only regulate the procedure, and do not affect any right or obligation of the parties. Discovery or production of documents accordingly is not a matter relating to the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy in a suit, and hence an order in that regard does not amount to case decided. 15. In view of the above decisions it is apparent that the orders, which are passed from time to time by the Court during the progress of the suit and which do not decide the rights of the parties cannot be treated to be case decided. Applying the principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of the present case, it will be noticed that it was the application of the defendant for filing the original cheque which has been rejected. This order cannot be treated to have decided the case. 16. Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava appearing on behalf of the applicant has contended that the scope of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is very wide and that the Court can interfere where a mistake is committed by the trial court which causes injustice or where the order, notwithstanding that it was a discretionary or interlocutory order, is contrary to law. He has placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Laxmi Prasad v. II Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and others (ARC 1983 (1) 182) (2) Smt. Surja Devi alies Suraj Kumar and others v. Smt. Mithilesh Kumari and others (ARC 1983 (2) 69) (3) Kamla Prasad and others v. The District Judge, Allahabad and others (ARC 1985 (1) 473) (4) Sukhmal Chand Jain v. Suraj Bhan (ARC 1983 (2) 409) (5) Janardan v. I Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and others (ARC 1983 (1) 182) (2) Smt. Surja Devi alies Suraj Kumar and others v. Smt. Mithilesh Kumari and others (ARC 1983 (2) 69) (3) Kamla Prasad and others v. The District Judge, Allahabad and others (ARC 1985 (1) 473) (4) Sukhmal Chand Jain v. Suraj Bhan (ARC 1983 (2) 409) (5) Janardan v. I Addl. District Judge, Nainital and others (ARC 1983 (1)640) 17. These decisions do not lay down when can an order be treated to amount to a case decided. They only deal with the scope of the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It will be noticed that in all the above decisions, the revision was filed after the final decision of the suit and not at any interlocutory stage. 18. For the reasons stated above I am of the view that the present revision is not maintainable as the order against which it has been riled, does not amount to, nor can it be treated to be$ a case decided. The revision is dismissed in limine. (Revision dismissed.)