R.S. Shukla, J.

In this case the revisional order of the Commissioner, Raipur Division, setting aside the sale of Khasra No. 85/7 (0.04 acre) in village Fafadih, tahsil and district Raipur has been challenged by the auction-purchaser (applicant) on a number of grounds. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, restricted his arguments to the following grounds only.

(1) Revision application before the Commissioner was time-barred. He did not pass a specific order condoning the delay. It would not therefore, be proper to infer such condonation by implication.

(2) The Commissioner should not have directly revised the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer as the Collector had already disposed of the order of the Sub-Divi3ional Officer in revision.

(3) Para. 33, Schedule II, M. P. Land Revenue Code bars the remedy by way of revision before the Commissioner. In case no application is made under rule 29 ibid the only remedy left for an aggrieved party is to go to the civil Court.

Before I deal with the grounds mentioned above the facts of the case may briefly be mentioned. The plot in question which was originally held by one Smt. Indira Prabha and passed on to one Jiwaram by a registered sale-deed dated 22-7-50. Jiwaram re-sold the land by registered deed to one Popatlal, the predecessor-in-title of the present non-applicants on 18-4-50 for a sum of Rs. 2,000. These changes were not mutated in revenue papers. The land revenue fell in arrears from 1951-52 onwards. Proceedings were started against Smt. Indira Prabha for the recovery of arrears by a sale of the aforesaid plot. The sale was knocked down in favour of the applicant on 12-7-56 and confirmed by the Sub-Divisional-Officer on 16-7-56. The sale proceedings were held invalid by the learned Commissioner for the following reasons:

(i) Prohibitory order in Form C, as required by rules framed under section 135 (b) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code was not issued by the attaching officer.

(ii) Full auction money was not paid by the auction-purchaser as laid down in rule 26, Schedule II, M. P. Code.

(iii) Confirmation of sale was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer before the expiry of the period prescribed under rule 32 of Schedule II, M. P. Code. In consequence, the learned Commissioner directed the re-sale of the plot according to law with the proviso that the whole of the purchase-money be refunded to the auction-purchaser, now the applicant before me.

In regard to ground No. (i) raised before me, it appears that the learned counsel for the applicant laboured under some misconception of facts. The learned Commissioner in para. 2 of his order, has discussed the circumstances under which he thought fit to admit the revision although the same was technically time-barred. The discretion in this respect rests with the Court provided it does not abuse it. In the circumstances of the case, I do not see any reason to question the discretion of the learned Commissioner. This contention has, therefore, no force.

In regard to the second ground, which relates to the powers of the Commissioner under section 46, Madhya Pradesh Code, it may be pointed out that the powers available to him under section 46 of the Code are very wide and he has committed no illegality in interfering with the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was the real and effective order pertaining to the disposal of the plot in dispute. Section 46 ibid does not limit the revisional powers of the Commissioner to an order passed by the Collector as contended by the learned counsel. In law, he can interfere in revision against any order passed by any revenue officer subordinate to him. The Sub-Divisional Officer being one such revenue officer there was no contravention of the provisions of section 46 ibid.

Lastly in regard to the interpretation of the provisions of rule 33 of Schedule II, Madhya Pradesh Code, I am afraid the view taken by the learned counsel for the applicant is not correct. The said provision is as follows:

33