C. P. SEN, J. : - The question referred for consideration of the Full Bench is : -

"Whether a revision lies from an order passed by the District Judge under Section 139 (5) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961."

This order shall also dispose of the connected Civil Revisions Nos. 779, 781 and 783 of 1972.

2. Sub-sections 139 (1) to (5) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 are as under : -

139. (1) If any dispute arises as to the liability of any land or building to assessment or as to the basis or principle of assessment or as to the amount of tax assessed an appeal shall lie from the decision of the Council to the Civil Judge, Class I having jurisdiction over the Municipal area and if there be no Civil Judge, Class I at the headquarter of the Municipality to the Civil Judge, Class II having jurisdiction at such headquarter and if there be no Civil Judge, Class II at such headquarter to the Civil Judge, Class II having jurisdiction, and in case of more than one such Civil Judges at the headquarter or having jurisdiction as the case may be, to such one of them as the District Judge may specify.

(2) Such appeal shall be presented to the Civil Judge within thirty days from the date of the order passed under Section 138 and shall be accompanied by an extract from the register of objections containing the order objected to.

(3) The provisions of Parts II and III of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), relating to appeals shall apply to every appeal preferred under this section.

(4) No appeal shall be admitted under this section unless an objection has been preferred under Section 137.

(5) The decision of the Civil Judge in an appeal made under sub-section (1) shall, subject to the decision in revision by Court to which appeals against the decisions of such Civil Judge ordinarily lie, be final and effect shall be given by Council to such decision.

3. It is clear that, revisional power is conferred not upon any special Tribunal or Authority constituted under this statute but on an established Court i.e., to the Court to which appeals against the decision of such Civil Judge ordinarily lie, which is the Court of the District Judge, under the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958. In exercising the revisional power under this section, the revisional authority functions as a Court and not as a persona designate inasmuch as the jurisdiction is conferred under the Act on the Court itself. In Central Talkies Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1961 SC 606, a persona designata has been defined as a person who is pointed out or described as an individual as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class or as filling a particular character. In this case the Supreme Court has approved the Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in Parthasaradhi Naidu v. Koteshwara Rao, AIR 1924 Mad 561 that "personae designata are persons selected to act in their private capacity and not in their capacity as Judges".

4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in N. S. Thread Co. v. James Chadwick and Brothers, AIR 1953 SC 357, have held : -

"The rule is well settled that when a statute directs that an appeal shall lie to a court already established, then that appeal must be regulated by the practice and procedure of that court. This rule was very succinctly stated by Viscount Haldane, L. C. in National Telegraph Co. v., Postmaster-General, 1913 AC 546 in these terms : -

"When a question is stated to be referred to an established court without more, it in my opinion imports that the ordinary incidents of the procedure of that court are to attach and also that any general right of appeal from its decision likewise arises."

This decision has been approved in Collector, Varanasi v. Gauri Shankar, AIR 1968 SC 384, and it has been held that while acting under Section 19 (i) (f) of the Defence of India Act, 1939, High Court functions as a Court and not as designated person.

5. So, the revisional authority viz., the Court of District Judge under Section 139 (5) of the Ac