( 1 ) HEARD Ms. Kavitha holding brief for Sri A. K. Subbaiah, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Sachindra Karanth, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 2 ) THE order challenged in this revision is dated 25-8-1993 directing steps to be taken for service of notice after transfer of the case to the Court of Additional Munsiff, Shimoga. Revision under section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act lies from the decree or order made in the case decided by the Court of Small Causes, for High Court's satisfying itself as to whether the said decree or order was passed according to law. Initial condition for revision being maintained or revisional power being exercised is that there must be some order passed by the Court and that order should either amount to a decree or should amount to an order deciding the case. "order" expression means 'judgment which does not amount to a decree that which has the effect of deciding certain rights between the parties either involved in the case or in relation to the suit pending'. The order must amount to a case decided. What is a case decided has been the subject-matter of consideration in very many cases including the case of Major S. S. Khanna v Brig. F. J. Dilton. Considering the Major S. S. Khanna's case, supra, in the case of Baldevdas Shivlal and Another v filmistan Distributors (India) Private Limited and Others, their Lordships of the Supreme Court very clearly define the expression "case decided" and it will be profitable to quote the observations made in that case, "a case decided may be said to be decided if the Court adjudicates for the purpose of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy; every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC". The expression "any decree or order made in any case decided" very clearly reveals that order must be in the nature of a judgment or order deciding certain rights of the parties, otherwise, the revision arising from that judgment or order is not maintainable. ( 3 ) IN the present case, the order impugned is only an order that notice be issued of the case being transferred or case having been received on transfer. ( 3 ) IN the present case, the order impugned is only an order that notice be issued of the case being transferred or case having been received on transfer. I may quote the order contained in the order sheet dated 20-8-1993 which reads as under.- "20-8-1993, Plaintiff by Sri KGVM. In view of the High Court Notification I, No. GOB.. 489/92, dated 29-6-1993 this case is treated as Small Causes No. 56 of 1993. sd/ principal Additional Munsiff, shimoga. 25-8-1993 L. KGVM steps. 25-8-1993". The Court has only directed steps to be taken for service on the defendant. This order is an order for the progress of the suit. By this order, it cannot be said that any right of any of the parties have been decided, instead it is steps in the process of progress of the case and the order impugned cannot be said to be an order in terms which is used under Section 18 of the Small causes Courts Act. As the order contained in the order sheet does not amount to be an order amounting to case decided, revision is not maintainable and as such, is hereby dismissed.