The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'appellate jurisdiction' and its application to revisional powers exercised by the High Court under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code.

H.H. Shephard, C.J.

1. The first question is whether any appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from orders passed under the provisions of Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code. Considering this question with exclusive reference to the language used by the framers of the Letters Patent and the Charter Act, I should have great difficulty in holding that Clause 15, read as it must be with Section 13 of the statute, was intended to give a right of appeal in such matters. In order to hold that orders passed on revision come within the scope of Clause 13 it must be held that they are made by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. But for the opinion expressed in Allahabad shortly after the passing of the statute and practically acquiesced in by all the High Courts since that time, I should have thought that the power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts by Section 15 of the statute stood quite apart and distinct from their appellate jurisdiction. So that it could not possibly be said that in passing orders of a revisional character the High-Court was exercising its appellate jurisdiction. I hesitate, however, to assert my opinion in contradiction to the opinion hitherto entertained and acted upon by this as well as by the other High Courts, especially when I find that cases have been brought before the Judicial Committee in which the present question might have been but was not raised.

2. Accordingly, I think it must be that the judgment of a single Judge acting under Section 622 of the Code is open to appeal, unless the right of appeal has been taken away by Section 588 of that Code. On that question I entirely agree with Mr. Justice Subrahmania Aiyar. The question is, in my opinion, concluded by authority which it is beyond our province to criticise.

3. The answer which I would give to the question is that, if the order appealed against amounts to a judgment, an appeal against it does lie.

Subrahmania Aiyar, J

4. The first question for consideration is whether the power of revision exercised by this Court under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure is, within the meaning of the High . Courts Act and the Letters Patent constituting this Court, a part of the Courts appellate jurisdiction.

5. Now, according to Websters Dictionary the first meaning in law of the noun appeal is "the removal of a cause or a suit from an inferior to a superior Judge or Court for re-examination or review." The explanation of the term in Whartons Law Lexicon is only different in words. That explanation is " the removal of a cause from an inferior to a superior Court for the purpose of testing the soundness of the decision of the inferior Court." And in consonance with this broad meaning of the word, appellate jurisdiction means "the power of a superior Court to review the decision of an inferior Court." (Ib). Here two things which are required to constitute appellate jurisdiction are the existence of the relation of superior and inferior Court and the power on the part of the former to review decisions of the latter. This has been well put by Story. "The essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted and does not create that cause. In reference to judicial tribunals an appellate jurisdiction, therefore, necessarily implies that the subject-matter has been already instituted and acted upon by some other Court, whose judgments or proceedings are to be revised" (Section 1761, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States). It was, however, argued that except where the superior Court is called upon to revise a decision of the inferior Court by a party entitled so to set it in motion, the exercise of the power of revision cannot be said to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction. This argument clearly misses the true point which is intended to be conveyed and is conveyed by the term appellate jurisdiction. That point is t