S.R. No. 23086 of 1953 relates to a Civil Revision Petition purporting to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decree and judgment of the District Collector of East Godavari at Kakinada, in Summary Appeal No. 41 of 1952. That appeal was against the order of the Deputy Collector, Peddapuram, in Summary Suit No. 11 of 1949, which was instituted for the recovery of emoluments attached to the office of the barber service of Yendapalli village of Pithapuram Taluk. The suit was filed under section 13 of Madras Act III of 1895, and the appeal was under section 23 of that Act. S.R. No. 17106 of 1953 relates to a similar appeal under section 23 of Madras Act III of 1895. The question is whether Article 227 of the Constitution entitles a person aggrieved by an order of a tribunal like the District Collector to invoke the revisional powers of this Court, or in other words, whether Article 227 of the Constitution confers on the High Court the power to interfere with the orders of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals. The answer to the question depends entirely on a construction of Article 227 which runs thus:-

“227. (1) Every High Court shall have superinte