( 1 ) THIS and the connected Civil Revisions Nos. 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, and 1102 are from an order of the Civil Judge, Aligarh, refusing to review a judgment of his predecessor. The parties in all the revision applications are same; they relate to different parcels of land. The applicant was the plaintiff before the trial Court and the opposite party was the defendant. Ten suits were instituted under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, in the trial Court which was that of an Assistant Collector, First Class, by the applicant, claiming to be a sarbarakar, for ejectment of the opposite party alleged to be a trespasser upon the lands in dispute. The suits were contested by the opposite party on the ground that he, and not the applicant, was the sarbarakar and that he was not liable to be ejected. The trial Court decreed the suits holding that the applicant was the sarbarakar and not the opposite party and that the latter was a trespasser. It did not treat the dispute between the parties as one raising a question of proprietary interest and did not refer it to a civil Court for its finding (as contemplated by Section 286, UP. Tenancy Act ). The opposite party filed appeals from the decrees passed by the assistant Collector in the Court of the District Judge who transferred them to the Civil Judge. It was contended before the learned Civil Judge on behalf of the applicant that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals because no question of proprietary right was decided by the trial court.

( 2 ) IT is laid down in Section 284 (4), U. P. Tenancy Act, that an appeal from a decree of a revenue court passed in a suit in which an issue involving a question of proprietary right has been decided by a civil Court under Sub-s. (2), shall lie to the District Judge. The opposite party filed the appeals in the Court of the District Judge purporting to act under this provision. Ordinarily an appeal from a decree passed under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, would lie to the commissioner, and not to the District Judge. The learned Civil Judge held that he had jurisdiction to hear the appeals and also that the question raised by the opposite party was not a question of proprietary right. He allowed the appeals on the ground that the opposite party was the sarbarakar and not the applicant. The applicant did not file appeals from the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge but instead filed applications for review. The applications were filed before the Civil Judge who had passed the decrees but have been disposed of by his successor-in-office. The review applications were based solely on the ground of an apparent error on the face of the record.

( 3 ) IT was contended in the review applications on behalf of the applicant that when the learned civil Judge held that no question of proprietary right was raised between the parties in the trial court, no appeal from the decrees passed under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act could lie to him and that it was an apparent error on the face of the record for him not on]y to entertain the appeals but also to decree them. The learned Civil Judge refused to review the decree passed by his predecessor, being of the view that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant comes to this Court in revision from his orders.

( 4 ) I find that these applications cannot succeed. It was for the learned Civil Judge to decide whether there was any apparent error on the face of the record or not, when he found that there was no apparent error on the face of the record, it would not be competent for this Court to say that there was and to review the decrees passed by his predecessor. The intention of the legislature seems to be that the power of reviewing a judgment on the ground of an apparent error on the face of the record, should vest in the Court which has passed the order and not in a superior Court. The pre-I sent case must be distinguished from a case in which a Co