MALIK, CJ.:- This is a civil revision under S.115 of the Code. The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in any manner with plaintiffs possession of certain plots detailed in the plaint. The suit was filed in the Court of the Second Civil Judge of Meerut. The defendants filed a written statement in which, among other pleas, a plea was taken that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Judge framed a number of issues and under O.14, R.2 of the Code he decided to try the issue of law first.

2. Order 14, R.2 of the Code is as follows:

"Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined."

On 2-11-1953, the learned Civil Judge held that the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. It is against that decision that this civil revision was filed.

3. A preliminary objection is raised by the other side that no revision lies and learned counsel has relied on a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in - Buddhoo Lal v. Mewa Ram, AIR 1921 All 1 (FB) (A). The facts of that case were exactly similar. The jurisdiction of the Court had been challenged. The issue as regards jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue and it was held that the Court had jurisdiction. A revision against that decision was dismissed on the ground that it was not a case decided.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has, however, submitted that the case of - Buddhoo Lal v. Mewa Ram (A) may be reconsidered, as the point has been referred to a Bench of 7 Judges.

5. I do not, however, consider it necessary to postpone the hearing of this case by reason of the fact that a reference has been made in another case to a larger Bench.

6. Section 115 of the Code provides that:

"The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court 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 may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."

A revision can, therefore, be filed only if any "case has been decided" by a Court subordinate to such High Court. The question here is whether the learned Civil Judge has yet decided any case.

7. What is a case decided was considered at some length in a Full Bench decision of this Court in - Ramzan Ali v. Mt. Satul Bibi, AIR 1948 All 244 (FB) (B). That was no doubt a revision against and application under O. 33 of the Code granting permission to file a suit in forma pauperis. It was however, pointed out in that case that for purposes of convenience orders had been classified under two heads - "an order deciding a case" and "an interlocutory order". It was held that an order deciding a case must be an order affecting the rights of the parties and at the same time an order in a proceeding distinct and separable from the main case.

8. When, however, a Court decides a part of the controversy in a suit and its decision does not terminate the proceedings, it cannot be said to have either decided "a case" or even "part of a case". By trying certain issues first and then the remaining issues, it has merely written its judgment in two parts and both the parts taken together constitute the complete judgment in the case.

9. Judgment has been defined in S.2, sub-s. (9), Civil P.C., as meaning "the statement given by the judge of the grounds of a decree or order"; and decree has been defined in sub-s. (2) of S.2 as meaning:

"the formal expression of an adjudication