Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The learned Sub-Collector, holding that the Court had no jurisdiction, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. On a revision petition having been filed" before the Collector, he reversed the order of the first Court and remanded the suit for disposal. The question is, whether the High Courts power extends to revising the order of the Collector, made by him in the exercise of his own revisional powers. This question must be answered in the affirmative on the authority of Paramasvoamy Aiyangar v. Alamelu Natchiar Ammal I.L.R. (1918)Mad. 76 : 35 M.L.J. 632 and Ramasami Goundan v. Kali Goundan I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 310 : 36 M.L.J. 571 Mr Venkatesa Aiyangar relies upon the decision of the majority of the Judges in Raghunadha Patro v. Govinda Patro (1928)55MLJ798 but that case dealt with the orders of the Board of Revenue and not of the Collector and having regard to the dissent expressed from it by several Judges in the later Full Bench case Rajah of Mandasa v. Jagannayakulu (1931) 63 M.L.J. 450 as also by the referring Judges there, I am not prepared to extend its application beyond what has been actually decided by it. The preliminary obje