Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THESE are three connected applications by Amar Singh under Art 226 of the Constitution, and arise in the following circumstances.
(2.) THREE suits were brought by Kalia (Writ case No. 29), Goma (Writ case No. 30) and Rania (Writ case No. 31) before the Panchayat of village Elana. The suits were for price of Pala sofa by the plaintiffs to the defendant who is the applicant in all these three cases. The suits were resisted by the present applicant, and one of the objections that he had taken was that Ugam Singh Sarpanch we interested in the plaintiffs, and therefore he should not sit in the Panchayat for deciding the suits. The applicant's case further is that the Panchayat decided these suits ex parte after he was given an assurance that the suits would be transferred to another Panchayat. It is, therefore, prayed that as the Panchayat had no jurisdiction to decide these suits in view of Ugam Singh's taking part in it, the ex parte decree be set aside. Other grounds are also taken in support of the applications, but we need not refer to them because we propose to decide these three applications on a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties, This preliminary objection is that the applicant could file a revision in the court of the District Judge against the order of the Panchayat, and as such this court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in these cases. Sec. 59 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. XXI) of 1953 provides for a revision. We are concerned with sub-sec. (2) of sec. 59, which reads as follows - " (2) The District and Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any suit or case which has been finally decided by Panchayat to Tehsil Panchayat within the local limits of his jurisdiction and pass such order therein as he thinks fit : Provided that no action will be taken under this sub-section if an appeal under sec. 57 is pending before a Tehsil Panchayat or if such an appeal lies but has not been brought. " It is obvious that a revision lies to the District Judge from a decision either of the Panchayat or of the Tehsil Panchayat where the case or the suit before either of these is decided finally. There are, however, two restrictions to this power of revision conferred on the District Judge, which are to be found in the proviso to the sub-section. These two restrictions are (l) where an appeal under sec. 57 is pending before a Tehsil Panchayat, and 2) where an appeal lies, but has not been brought In the present cases, it is not in dispute that an appeal lies under sec. 57 (2) of the Act. But no Tehsil Panchayat has yet been formed, and thus there is no forum provided for filing an appeal under sec. 57 (2 ). The contention on behalf of the applicant is that the second restriction applies in this case. because even though no Tehsil Panchayat has yet been formed, the decree passed by the Panchayat was an appealable decree and therefore as an appeal lay it was possible for the District Judge to exercise jurisdiction as a revisional court under sec. 59 (2 ). We are of opinion that this argument is not sound. The second restriction in the proviso does not merely say that no revision would lie in a case in which an appeal lies. What it lays down is that where an appeal lies and a party has not brought the appeal, it will not be open to the District Judge to exercise his power of revision. It is, therefore, not merely the fact of an appeal lying which bars the jurisdiction of the District Judge. What really bars his jurisdiction is that the party, who has the right of appeal, has not brought the appeal. Where, however, as in this case, the Tehsil Panchayat has not been created and there is no forum provided for filing an appeal it cannot be said that a party, who had the right to file an appeal, has not brought the appeal. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that the District Judge has power to revise the order of the Panchayat. It was, therefore, the duty of the applicant to apply to the District Judge and ask him to exercise his powers of revision. We, therefore, dismiss these applications. But as the point of law was not free from doubt, we order the parties to bear their own costs of these applications. It will however be open to the applicant to apply to the District Judge in revision if so advised. . ;