SAHDEO SINGH Vs. MELHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This seems to be an unfortunate case. It was filed as a second appeal and a date was fixed for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Civil P. C.. The case came before Sulaiman, J., for admission. The learned Judge recorded the opinion that the appeal could not be admitted, but the memorandum of appeal might be treated as an application in revision. Accordingly, he ordered that notice should go to the opposite party. To-day the applicant (appellant) and the opposite party (the respondent) are both before me; and for the latter Mr. Bajpai takes a preliminary objection that no revision lies. To appreciate the point it will be necessary to go to some extent into the facts of the case. The suit was filed by the applicants before one Sahdeo Singh and others for recovery of rent in a revenue Court. The dispute was referred to arbitration and an award was made. An application was filed, contesting the award, by the plaintiffs. The learned Assistant Collector refused to consider the objections and purported to make a decree in accordance with the award. An appeal was taken to the learned District Judge and he held that no appeal lay to him. Then a second appeal was filed.

(2.) In the case of Kehri Singh V/s. Thirpal , Sulaiman and Boys, JJ., held that a revision did lie, in certain circumstances, from a case in which the original suit was cognizable by the revenue Court alone. In a recent yet unreported case, Bhagwan Das V/s. Chedi Lal Koeri a Bench of three Judges of this Court held that no revision lay in the circumstances of a case which were more or less similar to the case before me. Mr. Bajpai takes his stand on this and argues that no revision lay.

(3.) On the other hand Mr. Baleshwari Prasad contends that his case was originally an appeal and it ought to have been admitted as a second appeal. By implication he challenges the correctness of the order of Sulaiman, J. Mr. Bajpai contends that the order of Sulaiman, J., dated the 24 of March 1926, in this case is final and cannot be interfered with. I am not quite certain that such is the case. The matter is still pending before this Court and it would be always open to a Judge to say that an intermediate order passed by him at an earlier stage of a pending case was erroneous. In my opinion it would be still open to Sulaiman, J., himself to say, if he were hearing this revision, that an appeal did lie and he was prepared to hear the case as a second appeal.