SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

1. In the instant writ petition when it came to the notice of the Court that a Revision had been filed against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in a Suit filed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) then a specific query was raised by the Court as to how a Revision could be maintained in view of the provisions of Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) wherein it has been stated that if a party was aggrieved by a final order or decree passed in any suit specified in Column 2 of the 3rd Schedule then he had to file a First Appeal to the Court specified in Column 4 of the 3rd Schedule.

2. Learned counsel submitted that since there was a judgment of this Court dated 20.4.2017 passed in the Misc. Single No. 8354 of 2014 Anand Kumar Singh & Another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Seyc. Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. & Ors. reported in, (2017) 135 RevDec 642 laying down the law that after the enforcement of the Code on 11.2.2016, the remedy as was available in the earlier enactment/provisions, would still be available, the Revision was definitely maintainable. He submitted that as per the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, a Revision was maintainable under Section 333 which had provided that a Revision was maintainable if a statutory remedy of appeal, which lay, had not been availed of. He, therefore, submitted that as per the judgment and order dated 20.4.2017 reported in 2017 (135) RD 642, a Revision was maintainable as per the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

3. To bolster his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner read out paragraph 21 of the judgment reported in 2017 (135) RD 642. Since the counsel for the petitioner read out paragraph 21, the same is being reproduced here as under:-

“21. Thus, if Section 231 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, saves the pending proceedings under the previous enactments, in my considered opinion, the remedies available under the whole enactment in respect of proceedings instituted before the subordinate revenue Courts under previous enactments will also be saved.”

4. Learned counsel further relied upon a judgment reported in, (Lakshmi Prasad vs. Commissioner (Judicial), Varanasi Region, Varanasi and others, (2016) 133 RevDec 798) and specifically relying upon paragraph 16 of the judgment submitted that a Revisional jurisdiction could be invoked in place of an appellate jurisdiction where a Revision had been filed instead of an appeal. Since the learned counsel read out paragraph 16, the same is being reproduced here as under:-

“16. The revisional jurisdiction can be invoked in place of appellate jurisdiction and therefore, in cases where a revision is filed instead of an appeal, in view of the provisions contained in the second part of section 219, the same is akin to an appeal and must be held to be continuation of the proceedings.”

5. Further learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments reported in, (Messrs. Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (1953) AIR SC 221 and (Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and others, (1957) AIR SC 540). As the learned counsel read out paragraph 23 of the judgment reported in AIR 1957 SC 540, the same is being reproduced here as under:-

“23. From the decisions cited above the following principles clearly emerge:

(i) That the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded as one legal proceeding.

(ii) The right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right.

(iii) The institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit.

(iv) The right of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter the superior court ac