- (1.) THIS application in revision wrongly styled as an appeal against the appellate order of the learned Addl. Settlement Commissioner, dated 5. 11. 55 arises under the following cicumstances.
(2.) THE opposite Party Shri Ram, Raghunath, etc. filed and application before the A. R. O. after making necessary enquiries directed by his order dated 18. 6. 51 that these numbers be expunged from the Khatedari of the applicants and entered in the name of the opposite-party. THE applicants went in appeal before the learned Addl. Settlement Commissioner and after a good deal of protracted litigation the case was decided by the Board of Revenue on 19. 10. 54. It was observed by the Board that Krishna Ballabh the father of the applicant had died incorrect and illegal on the part of the Addl. Settlement Commissioner it was appeal without bringing the legal representatives on record. THE learned Addl. Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 5. 11. 55 directed that Uma Ballabh the applicant who was the son of the deceased Krishna Ballabh be brought on record as the legal representative of the latter, and that appeal be heard on merits. It is against this order that this revision application has been filed. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this revision against an interlocutory order of the learned Addl. Settlement Commissioner has been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite-party. His contention is that a revision against an interlocutory order of this nature is not competent. In support of this he has relied on A. I. R. 1947 Oudh Page 44 in which the following observations were made: "in order that a proceeding may be regarded as a 'case decided' it must be shown that it is a proceeding independent of the suit and entirely dissociated from it. A proceeding relating to substitution of a legal representative in place of a deceased party is a proceeding in the suit. A suit cannot be proceeded with unless a legal representative is substituted to carry on the suit. Hence, a proceeding in substitution is not a 'case decided' within the meaning of sec. 115, C. P. C. and no revision is maintainable against an order of substitution of a legal representative of a deceased party to the suit. " As the order in question does not fall within the meaning of 'case decided' but is of the nature of an interlocutory order, the ruling cited above is on all fours with the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, the application stands rejected. .;