( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the orders, Annexures-2 and 3, passed by the District Judge, Indore (respondent No. 2) in Civil Revision No. 15 of 1985.

( 2 ) SHORT facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner-firm filed Civil Suit No. 55-B of 1981, in the Court of VI Civil Judge, Class II, Indore against respondent 1 for recovery of Rs. 2860/- on the basis of a promissory note, executed by respondent 1. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court, vide its judgement and decree dt. 3-8-1984, holding that the promissory note in question was without consideration. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was registered as Civil Regular Appeal No. 5-B of 1985. This appeal came to be heard by Shri S. K. Pandey, Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, who by his judgement and decree dt. 11-4-1985 allowed the appeal and decreed the petitioner's claim. This judgement and decree has been filed as Annexure-I to this petition. Respondent 1 preferred a Civil Revision (C. R. No. 15 of 1985) under S. 115, CPC before the District Judge, Indore. The petitioner objected to the very maintainability of this revision in the Court of the District Judge against the judgement and decree passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge. This objection was overruled by the District Judge who by order dt. 6-12-1985 (Annexure-2) held that a revision petition against the judgement and decree of the Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge was maintainable in the Court of District Judge. By yet another order dt. 19-7-1985, (Annexure-3), the District Judge (respondent-2) stayed execution of the decree passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, in favour of the petitioner.

( 3 ) SHORT question, which arises for determination in this petition is whether a revision petition under S. 115, CPC, against the judgement and decree passed by an Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge is maintainable before the District Judge.

( 4 ) SHRI Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders, passed by respondent No. 2 are without jurisdiction. Referring to Sub-S. (2) of S. 7 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958, it was submitted that the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge is merely an extension of the Court of District Judge. Learned counsel also submitted that respondent No. 2 had jurisdiction under the amended S. 115, CPC to hear a revision petition against any order, judgement or decree passed by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge. In this connection he also referred to two decisions, in Sri Vishnu Avatar v. Shiv Autar, AIR 1980 SC 1575 and Jagman Singh v. Hemsingh, 1985 Jab LJ 319 and submitted that respondent No. 2 failed to understand the true import of these two decisions.

( 5 ) SHRI K. B. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1, on the other hand contended that an Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge can never be equated with the Court of District Judge, as according to him, a District Judge is always one and only one in the District, while there can be as many as Additional Judges to the Court of District Judge, as may be required. It was also contended that as the office of a District Judge, when held by a person, such a designation cannot be held by others, as there is no power conferred upon the District Judge under the law to delegate his powers. Learned counsel interpreting the amended S. 115, CPC, claimed that a revision lies to the District Judge and not to District Court and in the present case it should be so presumed that Civil Revision No. 15 of 1985, wherein the impugned judgement/orders (Annexures-2 and 3) were passed, was presented to the District Judge, as persona designata, under powers conferred on him by the amended S. 115, C. P. C.

( 6 ) IN order to determine the extent and scop