Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The petitioner who was the plaintiff before the District Munsifs Court could have appealed to the District Court against the Munsifs decree if she considered that that decision was legally wrong. If she had done so and if she failed even in appeal she could have come up in second appeal to this Court "-as a suit relating to a claim for maintenance."

2. Instead of doing so she has put in this revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. 225 days after the District Munsifs decision. This is not a case in which "no appeal lies" to the High Court and hence Section 115 cannot apply. There is no question of jurisdiction, perversely illegal decision, or material irregularity of procedure involved but only a question whether the District Munsif committed an error of law in allowing the plaintiffs Vakils consent to bind the plaintiff in the decision of the suit. It is admitted that the Vakils Vakalat empowered him to compromise the suit but the contention is that without a special and separate Vakalat (other than the engagement Vakalat which empowered the Vakil to compromise) the Vakils consent to the rate of maintenance proposed by the other side is not binding on