1. The order under attack in this revision petition is the order passed by the District Judge under sub-s. 3 of S.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, for short, The Telegraph Act. By this order the District Judge has determined the dispute concerning the sufficiency of compensation assessed by the Electricity Board under S.10 clause (d). Sub-s. 5 of S.16 says, speaking of such an order, that it has to be final.

2. Construing S.18(5) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 containing the word final' the Supreme Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai (1987 (1) K.L.T. 53 (SC) ) held:

"The language of the provision of S.18 (5) read with S.20 inhibits further revision. To vest the High Court with such jurisdiction would be contrary to the scheme of the Act, would be contrary to the public policy and would be contrary to the legislative intention as manifest from the different sections of the Act".

This principle enunciated by the Supreme Court made me ask the counsel for the petitioner as to how the revision under S.115 C. P. C. challenging the order which is to be final under sub-s. 5 of S.16, is maintainable.

3. Since, the decision on this issue was lik