Section 115, Civil Procedure Code does not apply to an order of a lower court refusing to grant a review of its decision when a remedy is available by means of an appeal.

Mockett, J.

1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. Nos. 294, 311 and 312 of 1940 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Gudiwada; the plaintiff-respondent is the landholder. He brought these suits for rent; and he also brought a suit, O.S. No. 268 of 1940, against another tenant who is not before me. The defence was that the Court had no jurisdiction because the land concerned was an estate within the Madras Estates Land Act and therefore only the Revenue Court could . try the suit. On the 3rd July, 1941, it was held that the Court had jurisdiction and that the property concerned was not an estate. No appeal was filed against this order. On the 13th September, 1941, O.S. No. 268 of 1940, was decided by the same Munsiff in which he held that a similar property was an estate. An application was filed before the learned District Munsiff who had decided O.S. Nos. 294, 311 and 312 of 1940 to review his judgment and order in these suits. He refused to do so stating quite correctly that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. These are petitions under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, seeking to revise that order.

2. I respectfully agree with the decisions of the Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ramlal v. Ratanlal I.L.R.(1904) All. 572 and of the Bombay High Court in Lakshmana Maruti Jadhav v. Maruti Lakshman Teli AIR1924Bom344 who have dealt with the question whether Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, applies to an order of a lower Court refusing to grant a review of its decision. Both the Benches have held that it does not. The petitioners could have appealed against the judgment in the three suits. Ordinarily Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is not invoked when a remedy is available by means of an appeal. I respectfully agree that no question of jurisdiction can possibly arise, the learned Judge having complete jurisdiction to decide whether he should or should not review his order. Apart from this, I do not consider these petitions have any merits. It is obvious that the petitioners were ready to abide by the decisions in the earlier suits; but when they heard that the learned District Munsiff had taken another view in the later suit they were anxious to see what further good fortune awaited them in the Courts. I do not think that they are entitled, now that they have allowed their remedy by way of appeal to lapse, to invoke this Courts discretionary powers in their favour by the circuitous method of a civil revision petition against an order refusing to review the judgment against which they preferred not to appeal.

3. The three civil revision petitions are dismissed with costs, three sets, as the petitioners are different in each.