S. D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Cons titution of India directed against the order of the IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Etah dated 9th April, 1976. A suit No. 39 of 1970 was filed by the opposite party No. 3 for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in suit on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent and the suit was valued at Rs. 2500/ -. A written statement was filed in which it was pleaded that the valua tion shown in the suit was wholly incorrect and the property was worth Rs. 1,50,000/- and the portion of the house in dispute was Rs. 25000/- and as such the suit was under- valued and the Court fee paid was insufficient. The trial Court framed issue No. 11 regarding the valuation of the suit. Thereafter an Amin was appointed to value the premises. After the Amin submitted a report, issue No. 11 was decided by the trial Court. The trial Court came to the conclusion that since the property in suit was let out at the rate of Rs. 15/-per mensem the valuation of the property put at Rs. 2000/- was a correct value. The issue was, therefore decided against the petitioner. Against the said decision the petitioner filed a revision in the Court of the District Judge, Etah. The revision came up for hearing before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Etah who by his judgment dated 19th April, 1979 dismissed the revi sion. The revisional Court had held that the decision on the question of valuation was not a case decided and as such no revision was maintainable against the said order. It is this order dated 19th April, 1976 which has been challenged in the present petition. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. Section 115 C. P. C, as amended by the C. P. C. Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 104 of 1976), has been repealed by the C. P. C. , U. P. Amendment Act (No. 31 of 1978) which came into force on 1-8-1978. Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure which requires interpretation in the present case reads as follows:- "115. The High Court, in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, including such suits or, other proceedings instituted before August 1, 1978 and the District Court in any other case, including a case arising out of an origi nal 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 proceedings 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 proceeding; 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. Explanation.-In this section, the expression 'any case which has been decided' includes any other deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding. " In accordance with the explanation added to Section 115 C. P. C. the expression 'any case it has been decided' includes any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding. In view of this explanation a decision on an issue would be a case decided. The principle laid down in the case of Abdul Ghani v. Vishunath, A. I. R. 1957 All. 337 and Kanahia Lal v. Ram Kishan and another, A. I. R. 1957 All. 399 would on this question therefore be no longer good law now. In view of the amendment of Section 115, C. P. C. a decision on an issue being a case decided, the decision on the issue of valuation would also be a case decided. The view to the contrary taken by the revisional Court, however, is no doubt erroneous, but this by itself does not help the petitioner. The second proviso to the above section, however, lays down that the High Court or the District Court shall not under this section vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue except where once the order is so varied or reversed it would finally dispose of the suit or proceeding and the order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. The decision on the issue of valuation does not finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings. The decision on the issue of valuation also does not occasion any failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. The explanation has to be read along with the proviso mentioned above and reading the explanation along with the proviso it is clear that though a decision on the question of valuation may be a case decided but it would not entitle the Court to interfere in revision because of the proviso. In the cir cumstances, in my opinion, the revision was not maintainable. The view therefore, taken by the Court below cannot be said to be manifestly erroneous. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. The interim order dated 14th March, 1980 is hereby discharged. .;