( 1. ) THIS is a revision by the plaintiff-applicant against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Bhopal, in civil appeal No. 1-B of 1967, whereby the learned District Judge, dismissing the application of the plaintiff, filed under sections 5/14 of the Indian Limitation Act, held that no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of the delay.

( 2. ) THE facts, in brief, leading to this revision were that ths plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for damages to the tune of Rs. 8,255 /- including the price of goods, damages and notice charges for the loss of goods during the transit against the defendant-non-applicants in the Court of the Civil Judge, class I, Vidisha. The learned Judge, after framing the issues on the pleadings of the parties, held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and, therefore, passed an order on 13-2-67 directing that the plaint be presented before a proper Court.

( 3. ) THE applicant then filed an appeal in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Vidisha, on 7-3-67and that too was returned on 22-7-1967 to be filed in the proper Court. He then filed it in the Court of the learned district Judge, Bhopal, on 24 7-1967, 23-7-67 being a Sunday. He also filed an application under section 5 read with section 14 of the Indian Limitation act. The learned District Judge, by his order dated 16-12-1968, relying on the decision of Bhargava J. in Umasharan Saxena and others v. Mansaram and others (1970 M p l J157 (Civil Revision No. 22 of 1967, decided on the 18th October 1967.)) held that no case of "good faith" or "bona fide" was made out by the plaintiff and hence he dismissed the application. The applicant has, therefore, now come up in revision before this Court.

( 4. ) SHRI Chitale, the learned counsel for the applicant, has invited my attention to sections 3, 6 and 7 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958, and contended that the jurisdiction of the District Judge as well as that of the Additional District Judge is concurrent, and the jurisdiction is conferred by the state Legislature, Vide section 6 of the Act, and it could not be a creature of the District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge, Vidisha, had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal even though the distribution memorandum issued by the D strict Judge authorised him only to hear appeals up to the valuation of Rs. 5,000/ -. He further stressed that section 7 (2) of the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958, only authorised the District Judge to assign by a general or special order the Additional District Judge, and that being the case, it was only a ministerial order and not a judicial one, which does not affect the powers of the Additional District Judge which are the same as those of the district Judge, and in support, he relied on the decision of Krishnan J. in noor Mohammad v Prabhu Dayal and another (1972 M. P. L. J. Note No. 5=1968 J. L. J. Short Note No. 55= (Seeond Appeal no. 247 of 1965, decided on the 21st July 1966 ).) and also the decision of Shiv dayal J. in Premnarayan and another v. Mst Kokabai (Second Appeal No. 33 of 1962, decided on the 29th July 1966.) The learned counsel further contended that the rulings in Kuldip singh v. The State of Punjab and another (A I R 1956 S. C. 391.) and Janak Dulari v. Narain Dass (A I R 1959 Punj. 50.) also support his view. He further stressed that, in case this Court agreed with the view taken by Bhargava J. in umasharan Saxena and others v. Mansaram and other , the matter may be referred to the Full Bench.

( 5. ) SHRI Khirwadkar, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2, on the other hand, urged that the revision is not competent as the order, under order 7, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is appealable under Order 43, rule 1 of the Code. He also invited my attention to sections 13, 15, 18 and 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958, and urged that as the district Judge had not assigned the appeal in question for hearing to the learned A