1. A suit filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner and two others under Section 19(1) (a), Mamlatdars Courts Act was dismissed by the Mamlatdar on the ground that the plaintiff had not shown that he was in possession of the land. Statutory issues required to be framed under Section 19(1) were found upon by the Mamlatdar against the plaintiff and in favour of the petitioner. The plaintiffs revisional application was, however, allowed by the District Deputy Collector, who answered the statutory issues in favour of the plaintiff. That is why defendant No. 2 has come to this Court In revision.

2. It appears that the District Deputy Collector set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar on two grounds. The District Deputy Collector did not agree with the Mamlatdars appreciation of evidence and so he thought that it was open to him to consider the evidence afresh and come to his own conclusions on questions of fact. The validity of this course has been challenged before me by Mr. Abhyankar. Mr. Abhyankar has invited my attention to the judgment of Beaumont C. J. in Babaji Kondaji v. Bala Fakira, 1938 Bom 159 (AIR V 25) (A) in which the learned Chief Justice has decided that th