JUDGMENT

Richards and Alston, JJ. - The facts out of which this application in revision arises are shortly as follows: The plaintiffs instituted a suit in the Revenue Court. That court was of opinion that the suit was not cognizable by it and accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge who seems to have been of opinion that the decision of the court of first instance was correct and that the suit was not a suit cognizable by a Revenue Court. However, under the provisions of Sections 196 and 197 of the Agra Tenancy Act he made a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied to the Assistant Collector of the first class for execution of the decree. The Assistant Collector refused the application. The present application in revision to us is against such refusal. The reason that the application is made by way of revision is because no appeal lies. Section 177 of the Agra Tenancy Act deals with appeals to the District Judge. That section certainly does not give an appeal against the order of an Assistant Collector of She first class refusing to execute a decree. It would appear as if there was an omission from the Act, for it is hardly conceiv