Abdur Rahman, J.

1. This is a petition for revision against the order passed by Mr. Mack, District Judge of East Godavari at Rajahmundry, declaring the petitioner to be a tout under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the Government Pleader to the effect that the order passed by the lower Court is not open to revision. The point is of considerable importance as it involves the question of valuable rights of a citizen and has therefore to be carefully examined.

3. The contention raised by the Government Pleader is based on the addition of Sub-clause. (2) to Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which did not find a place in the corresponding Section 107 of the prior Act of 1919. Sub-clause. (2) of Section 224 of the present Act reads as follows :

Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving to a High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgment of any inferior Court which is not otherwise subject to appeal or revision.

4. Basing his reliance on the amendment, the Government Pleader contends that the High Courts in India could revise orders, similar to the one in question now, either under Section 15 of t