The amendment to Section 115 of the CPC by the State of Madhya Pradesh restricted the High Court's revisional powers to cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of Rs. 20,000/- and above.

( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 150 of 89, 151 of 89, 151 of 89, 153 of 89 and 154 of 89. All these revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 17/06/1989 passed by the second Addl. Judge to the court of District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Misc. Appeals Nos. 43 of 83, 45 of 82, 44 of 83, 44 of 82 and 46 of 83, respectively.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the decision of these revision petitions are that the respondent No. 1 State Officer, Public Premises Eviction Act (Divisional Engineer, W. R. Ratlam) in exercise of his powers under S. 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 issued a notice for eviction of the premises occupied by the petitioners in all the five revision petitions holding that they are occupying the premises belonging to the Railways. An objection was raised by the petitioners stating therein that the premises do not belong to the Railway. The notice was further resisted on the ground that the Railway has already filed a civil suit and, therefore, the proceedings under the Act could not be initiated. However the order was passed by the respondent No. 1 directing the eviction of the applicants from the premises on 2-6-1982. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present applicants filed appeals before the District Judge, Ratlam u/s. 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act ). All the appeals were registered as miscellaneous appeals before the lower court and vide the impugned orders the learned Addl. Judge to the court of District Judge has disallowed the appeals. Hence these revision petitions.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection was raised about the maintainability of the revision petitions against the order of the Appellate Court on two grounds. Firstly, that S. 10 of the Act in unequivocal terms attaches finality to the appellate order and, therefore, it could not be challenged by filing a revision petition. Secondly that in view of the amendment made in S. 115, CPC by the State of M. P. also the revision petitions are not tenable.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants Shri Purohit supporting the tenability of the revision petitions has vehemently argued that in view of the various decisions of this court the revisions are maintainable. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Railways states that in view of the clear provisions of law these revision petitions are not maintainable.

( 5 ) THE first judgment on this point under the Act cited before me is one reported in AIR 1966 MP 7 Hargovind Sharma v. Divisional Engineer Railway Administration, S. E. Railway Bilaspur wherein it has been held that an appeal lies to the District Judge as a persona designata and not to a court of the District Judge. This is clear from the language of the provisions of Ss. 9 (1) and 10. As such the decision of the District Judge as persona designata is not revisable in view of the clear provisions of S. 10 of the Act wherein even the challenge to the appellate order by way of an application is barred. In another judgment of this court in Harischandra v. Life Insurance Corp. 1982 MPWN Short Notes 312 it has been held that in view of the provisions contained in S. 9 of the Act an appeal will lie to an appellate officer who shall either be the District Judge of the District in which the public premises are situated or such other judicial officer having not less than 10 years standing as would be designated by the District Judge in that behalf and, therefore, passing an order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this court has held that the order of the Appellate Court was without jurisdiction as the Addl. Judge had no power to hear that appeal and the case was, therefore, remanded to the District Judge for disposal.

( 6 ) THE judgment in Hargovind Sharma v. Divisional Engineer, S. E. Railway, Bilaspur (supra) was considered by this court in a later decision in the