ORDER 1. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner against the impugned order, whereby the learned Sub-ordinate Judge confirmed the Commissioner's report under Order XXVI Rule 14(3) of the Code. 2. On the objection raised by the Stamp Reporter regarding maintainability of this civil revision, a learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties and having differed with a decision of another Single Judge of this Court in the case of Uma Kant Jha & other vs. Shital Takur & other, 1995(1) PLJR 670 , referred this matter to a Division Bench. 3. It would appear from the impugned order that after the preliminary decree in the partition suit, a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner was appointed for carving out separate Takhta to the extent of the shares allotted to the parties in the decree. The Commissioner after observing all the formalities submitted his report on 6.4.1993 along with map and other relevant papers. Parties were heard on the objection filed by defendant nos. 2 and 3 and ultimately by the impugned order, the court below rejected the objection of the defendants and confirmed the report, fixing the case for 19.11.1996 for further steps. 4. Solitary question emerges in this case is whether a person aggrieved by an order confirming Commissioner's report under Order XXVI Rule 14(3) of the Code, can prefer a revision under Section 115 of the Code or an appeal. Because admittedly, Order XLIII Rule 1 does not prescribe any appeal against such order. 5. According to the petitioner, in view of the judgment in the case of Uma Kant Jha (supra) and a decision of Orissa High court in the case of Chaitan Devi vs. Smt. Puranabasi Pattanayak & other (AIR 1988 Orissa 52) no appeal can be preferred under Section 96 of the Code against such order. Therefore, against the order under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order XXVI, the aggrieved parties will have no other option, but to seek remedy under Section 115 of the Code. For proper appreciation of the issue, it would be advisable to have a brief survey of certain provisions of the Code. 6. Section 2(2) of the Code defines a 'decree' which includes preliminary and final. For proper appreciation of the issue, it would be advisable to have a brief survey of certain provisions of the Code. 6. Section 2(2) of the Code defines a 'decree' which includes preliminary and final. As per explanation attached to the said provision, a decree is preliminary, when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. But it is final when such an adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary or partly final. 7. Order XX Rule 18 of the Code stipulates decree in a partition suit. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 prescribes power of a court as to how partition of immovable property can be made. It says that a court may itself partition the property or make such partition by separation. If there s any difficulty, he can pass only a preliminary decree, declaring right of the parties, giving such further directions as may be required. 8. Then comes the stage of Order XXVI for appointment of Commissioner etc. Rule 14 of the Order prescribes mode and procedure for appointment of a Commissioner and confirmation of report. For proper appreciation it is advisable to quote Sub-rule (3) in extenso:– "Where the Court confirms or varies the report or reports it shall pass a decree in accordance with the same as confirmed or varied; but where the court sets aside the report or reports it shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it shall think fit." As would appear from the aforesaid provision that where a Court confirms or varies the report or reports after adjudication, if any, it shall pass a decree in accordance with the same, as confirmed or varied. But if the Court decided to set aside the report, it shall either issue a new commission or make such order or orders as he thinks proper. 9. According to the opposite party, the moment report of a Pleader Commissioner is confirmed under Rule 14, Sub-rule (3), aggrieved party can at best lay appeal against such order under Section 96 of the Code but not a revision under Section 115. Because such order has to form a part of the decree. Whereas counsel for the petitioner stated, if such a view is taken, parties aggrieved against an order, confirming Pleader Commissioner's report, would become remediless, until final decree is passed. Because such order has to form a part of the decree. Whereas counsel for the petitioner stated, if such a view is taken, parties aggrieved against an order, confirming Pleader Commissioner's report, would become remediless, until final decree is passed. That apart, such a person can not maintain two appeals, i.e. one against preliminary decree, and the other against final decree. Because Section 97 of the Code, debars a person from filing appeal under Section 96 of the final decree. Such person had failed to file an appeal against the preliminary decree. Therefore, as per interpretation of the aforesaid provisions, in case a party is not aggrieved by the preliminary decree, he can not agitate the matter regarding confirmation of Pleader Commissioner's report after the final decree by filing appeal under Section 96. 10. As would appear from the judgment in the case of Uma Kant Jha (supra) that learned Single Judge having accepted similar submission in the aforesaid case, held that no appeal lies against an order of a Court, accepting or confirming Pleader Commissioner's report, except a revision u/s 115 of the Code. 11. In my view, a bare reference to the explanation attached to sub-section (2) of Section 2 read with that stipulated under Rule 14(3) of Order XXVI, it would reveal that no revision can be maintainable against an order, confirming Commissioner's report. We have already indicated that as per explanation attached to sub-section (2) of Section 2, a decree is preliminary, when a proceeding is required to be taken before the suit can be finally disposed of. But it is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. Thus, if a court confirms or varies the report of Pleader Commissioner after adjudication such a report shall form part of the decree. The aggrieved party against such confirmation can only prefer appeal after the decree but no revision would be maintainable. 12. One should always remember that from the date of institution of a suit or a proceeding and until its conclusion, several orders are passed from time to time. Some of them may be erroneous or may even smack of errors of jurisdiction. But all interlocutory orders, as pointed out by the Apex Court in the case of Baldeo Das Shivlal, AIR 1970 SC 406 , can not be taken to be a case decided within the meaning of Section 115. Some of them may be erroneous or may even smack of errors of jurisdiction. But all interlocutory orders, as pointed out by the Apex Court in the case of Baldeo Das Shivlal, AIR 1970 SC 406 , can not be taken to be a case decided within the meaning of Section 115. In this regard it would also be useful to notice, a well celeberated judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Gulam vs. Nawin, A.I.R. 1972 Patna 499 wherein, it was pointedly held that confirming Pleader Commissioner's report or setting aside, ordering further investigation is not revisable under Section 115. 13. That apart, this may not be a correct approach to say that in absence of the forum of revision, aggrieved party would become remediless. Because in view of specific command of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, the moment Pleader Commissioner's report is confirmed, a decree shall follow in accordance with the confirmed report. In other words, the court will have no option, but to pass a decree in accordance with the confirmed report, against which a party, if aggrieved, shall be entitled to prefer appeal. 14. That being so, in our considered view, the impugned order of the Sub-ordinate Judge can not be interfered with in exercise of revisional powers. 15. The application in revision, therefore, fails, as not maintainable.