JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists. 2. This revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad in original suit No. 312 of 2013. 3. The plaintiffs respondents No. 1 to 20 filed the above suit for declaration of their rights over the suit land and for declaring the sale deeds dated 09.01.1956 and 04.07.2012 as null and void. In the said suit apart from the private defendants State of U.P. through Collector Moradabad, Zila Pashu Chikitsa Adhikari and Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry were also arrayed as the proforma respondents. The plaintiffs respondents No. 1 to 12 moved application under Section 80(2) C.P.C. for the leave of the court to sue without serving any notice upon the State Government as contemplated by under Section 80(1) C.P.C. The said application was allowed by the court of first instance vide order dated 10.04.2013. 4. The defendants revisionists applied for the recall of the above order. The application for recalling the said order has been rejected by the impugned order dated 16.09.2013. 5. The rejection of the recall application is not a final order amounting to a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 C.P.C. and as such is not revisable. Moreover, it is not the case that the said order has been passed without hearing the defendant revisionist. 6. The court of first instance in granting the leave to sue without service of notice upon the State Government has recorded that the matter is urgent as there is likelihood of the defendants revisionists disposing the suit property. 7. In the above circumstances, the court below is not in error in exercising jurisdiction in allowing the application under Section 80(2) of the C.P.C. 8. The revision as such lacks merit. 9. The revision is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable as well as on merits.