Pankaj Mithal, J.— Heard Sri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist. Sri Kripa Shankar Singh has appeared for plaintiff respondents. 2. The defendant revisionist has sought revision of the order dated 14.8.2012 passed by the trial court in Original Suit No. 1278 of 2010. 3. The aforesaid suit is for cancellation of a sale deed and for declaring it to be null and void. The suit has been valued at Rs. 11,60,000/- which is an amount of sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. It the said suit an application of the plaintiffs respondents no. 1 and 2 for interim injunction was not being considered despite being pending for the last two years. Therefore, on a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed in this Court, directions were issued on 18.7.2012 directing the court below to proceed and decide aforesaid application preferably within a period six weeks. 4. At this stage an application was filed by the defendant revisionist contending that in the suit first the matter regarding valuation and court fees be decided. On the said application, the Court directed that as there is direction by the High Court to decide 6C application within a time bound period, and the matter has already been considerably delayed, the application 6C be put up for consideration on the next date fixed. 5. It is the aforesaid order which is being challenged in the present revision. 6. The aforesaid order is simple interlocutory order and is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 CPC. No rights of the parties have been adjudicated by the said order. Moreover, if the said order is allowed to stand it would not occasion failure of justice. 7. In view of the above, revision against the said order is not maintainable. 8. It is also not clear from the record as to what is the exact objection of the defendant revisionist against the valuation and as to how the amount of court fees paid is less. 9. In case defendant revisionist is advised, he may file a proper application in this regard before the court below which will be considered independently of the application 6C pending consideration. 10. Revision is dismissed with the above observation. _____________