JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.N. Varma, J.—The opposite party No. 1, i.e. the Plaintiff before the trial Court, instituted a Suit, being Suit No. 209 of 1986, for specific performance of contract against the petitioners, i.e. Defendants. During the pendency of the proceedings the petitioners preferred an application for issuance of a Commission. The trial Court vide its order dated 1.7.2004 rejected the said application, against which the petitioners approached the District Judge in Revision under Section 115 of C.P.C., who vide its judgment and order dated 15.10.2004 dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability. It is against the said judgment and order that the petitioners have approached this Court through the instant writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 3. Sri Tripathi submitted that the learned Courts below committed a manifest error in dismissing the Revision on the ground of maintainability. As per his submission the application which was preferred for issuance of Commission was for the purpose to ascertain as to whether or not the bricks which were supplied to the opposite party No. 1, were from the brick kiln of the petitioner and the money which had been paid to them pertained to the cost of the said bricks and not as an advance in respect of the alleged agreement. In support of his case he placed reliance upon (a) JT 2000 (7) SC 379, Shreepat v. Rajendra Prasad and others, (b) JT 2003 (6) SC 465, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., (c) AIR 2002 SC 110 , Smt. Soni v. District Judge, Allahabad and others, (d) 2003 (3) AWC 2198 (SC), Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and others. 4. In opposition Sri P. K. Jain submitted that the order rejecting an application for issuance of Commission is not revisable as it is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, C.P.C. As per his submission the learned Court below was perfectly justified in not interfering with the order dated 1.7.2004 as the same neither adjudicated upon an issue, nor decided any rights of the parties. In support of his case he placed reliance upon 1994 (2) ARC 204, Munshi Lal Agarwal and others v. IXth A.D.J. Lucknow and others and 1990 (1) ARC 8, Hajari Lal v. Siya Saran and others. He further submits that in a Suit for specific performance of contract with regard to supply of the bricks can be established by other evidence and not by issuing the Commission and getting it ascertained through Commission. 5. Section 115 of C.P.C., as amended and applicable to State of U.P. reads as follows: “115. Revision.—The High Court, in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings (of the value exceeding one lakh rupees or such higher amount not exceeding five lakh rupees as the High Court may from time to time fix, by notification published in the official Gazette including such suits or other proceedings instituted before the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, or as the case may be, the date of commencement of such notification), and the District Court in any other case, including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceedings instituted before such date, may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be, and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears— (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. Provided that in respect of cases arising out of original suits or other proceeding of any valuation, decided by the District Court, the High Court alone shall be competent to make an order under this section : Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where,— (i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made : (Provided also that where a proceeding of the nature in which the District Court may call for the record and pass orders under this section was pending immediately before the relevant date of commencement referred to above, in the High Court, such Court shall proceed to dispose of the same.) Explanation.—In this section, the expression ‘any case which has been decided’ includes any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceedings.” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the High Court in cases arising out of original Suits or other proceedings and District Courts in any other cases including a case arising out of original Suits and other proceedings may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court or District Court. 7. Explanation I appended to the said Section defines the expression “any case which has been decided, which includes any order deciding an issue in the course of the Suit or other proceeding”. The application made for issuance of a Commission and decision rendered thereon does not decide any issue in the course of the Suit or other proceedings. Unless any issue which decides the rights of the parties is dealt with and adjudicated upon by the Court subordinate to High Court or District Court, as the case may be, the case cannot be said to have been decided. 8. In Sreepat v. Rajendra Prasad and others (supra) the identity of land which was subject matter of dispute was raised. The Apex Court observed in order to ascertain the identity of the land the issuance of Commission was required. 8. In Sreepat v. Rajendra Prasad and others (supra) the identity of land which was subject matter of dispute was raised. The Apex Court observed in order to ascertain the identity of the land the issuance of Commission was required. In para 4 the Apex Court had observed as follows : “4. In our opinion, this contention is correct. Since there was a serious dispute with regard to the area and boundaries of the land in question, especially with regard to its identity, the Courts below, before decreeing the suit should have got the identity established by issuing a survey commission to locate the plot in dispute and find out whether it formed part of Khasra No. 257/3 or Khasra No. 257/1. This having not been done has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. We consequently allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Courts below as affirmed by the High Court and remand the case to the trial Court to dispose of the suit afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law.” 9. In the case at hand there is no question of identity of land and therefore, regarding establishment of the same the issuance of Commission was not required. The said case does not have any application as such. 10. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others (supra), the Apex Court observed that those interlocutory orders passed by the subordinate Court which are amenable the Revisional jurisdiction. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be applicable. This is also not the case in the present dispute, therefore, the said case has no application. 11. In Smt. Soni v. District Judge, Allahabad and others (supra) the question was also as to whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to ex parte injunction amounts to a case decided. Since this is not the question involved, therefore, the said case also does not have any application. 12. In Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and others (supra) the question before Apex Court was as to whether a Revision was maintainable against interlocutory order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in case the order attaches finality then the Revision is maintainable and if the answer is ‘no’ then the Revision is not maintainable. 12. In Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and others (supra) the question before Apex Court was as to whether a Revision was maintainable against interlocutory order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in case the order attaches finality then the Revision is maintainable and if the answer is ‘no’ then the Revision is not maintainable. In para 32 of the said report, the Apex Court observed as follows : “32. A plain reading of Section 115, as it stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is ‘yes’ then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is ‘no’, then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is of interim nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. The legislative intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot be the subject-matter of revision under Section 115. There is marked distinction in language of Section 97(3) of the Old Amendment Act and Section 32 (2) (i) of the Amendment Act. While in the former, there was clear legislative intent to save applications admitted or pending before the amendment came into force. Such an intent is significantly absent in Section 32 (2)(i). The amendment relates to procedures. No person has a vested right in a course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a statutory change, the mode of procedure is altered the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception unless there is a different stipulation.” 13. In view of the fact that the order rejecting an application for issuance of a Commission does not attach any finality to the proceedings, therefore, no Revision lies against the said order which is in the shape of an interlocutory order. The said case also does not have any application. 14. In Munshi Lal Agarwal and others v. IXth A.D.J. Lucknow and others (supra) relying upon various decisions of this Court as well as by the Apex Court, it was observed that order rejecting an application for issuance of Commission does not amount to a case decided and the same being an interlocutory order no Revision lies. 14. In Munshi Lal Agarwal and others v. IXth A.D.J. Lucknow and others (supra) relying upon various decisions of this Court as well as by the Apex Court, it was observed that order rejecting an application for issuance of Commission does not amount to a case decided and the same being an interlocutory order no Revision lies. In para 11 of the said report it was observed as follows : “11. An order rejecting earlier application dated 15-9-1990 in this case is nothing but order is interlocutory in its nature. This order by itself does not pass or determine any right of the parties. The Court had only to observe that the report of the Commissioner is nothing but a piece of evidence and that a party cannot be allowed to adduce fresh evidence except in very exceptional circumstance. In the order dated 15-9-1990 the Court further observed that in the instant case, from the perusal of the Lower Court record it is clear that the appointment of Vakil Commissioner was done on 6-1-1990 with the consent of the parties. The learned Lower Court has given full opportunity to the parties to file their objection against the Commissioner report and after hearing these objections the learned Court had passed the order on 16-3-1990 that the Commissioner report would be read in evidence subject to the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. It further appears from the records that the appellant has filed evidence in this case after the submission of the report of the Vakil Commissioner. In view of the matter the prayer of appellant for Local Inspection of the disputed property, I find, is not liable to be allowed. The appellant’s application is rejected. Such orders are and have been taken to be orders of interlocutory nature and not one deciding or determining any of rights of the parties and so do of the amount to be case decided. This being the position that the order does not amount to be an order determining the right of the parties when an application for issue of Commission is rejected it does not amount to be a case decided. It has been so held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gambhir Mal Pandia v. George Anthony John, AIR 1934 All 57.” 15. It has been so held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gambhir Mal Pandia v. George Anthony John, AIR 1934 All 57.” 15. In Hajara Lal v. Siya Saran and others (supra) this Court held that an order holding a document to be inadmissible in evidence is an interlocutory order and also it does not amount to final adjudication of dispute inter se within the parties, therefore, Revision is not maintainable. However, the Revision of the said case was under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act. In para 2 of the said report it was observed as follows— “2. Under Section 25 of the Act only such decrees or orders are open to challenge which are made in any case decided. It cannot be gainsaid that any order which does not adjudicate upon any right or obligation of the parties in controversy cannot amount to a case decided, which is a condition precedent for exercise of powers under Section 25 of the Act. In its decision, rendered in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokal Chand, AIR 1967 SC 799 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that orders regarding of summoning witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission for examination of witness, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and admissibility of a document or a relevancy of a question are interlocutory orders. They are steps towards the final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their cases in the pending proceedings, they regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties.” 16. Thus what is clearly decipherable from the aforesaid discussion is that before a Revision can be entertained in exercise of power under Section 115, C.P.C., the order which is said to be assailed under Revisional jurisdiction has to be a case decided within the meaning Section 115 of C.P.C. In view of the fact, by rejection of the application for issuance of a Commission, neither any issue is decided nor any of the rights of the parties are adjudicated upon, therefore, such an order does not amount to a case decided and in the considered opinion of this Court the Revision against the same is not maintainable. 17. 17. Thus, in the backdrop of the discussions made hereinabove, the learned Court below did not commit any illegality in not interfering with the order dated 1.7.2004 in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The learned District Judge was perfectly justified in holding that since the order under challenge did not amount to case decided and also the same being an interlocutory order, therefore, the revision was not maintainable. 18. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the District Judge. The petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 19. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 20. Since the Suit is of 1986, it is desirable that the trial Court shall decide the same expeditiously, say within a period of six months. ———