John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.
1. This is a civil revision application, which was referred to a Bench, because there appeared to be some difference of opinion between a decision of a bench of this Court in Ahmedabad Municipality v. Vadild : AIR1928Bom376 and a decision of Mr. Justice Norman in Surat Municipality v. Hamiduddin (1937) 40 Bom. L.R. 387. The point is a very short one.
2. Under Section 110 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, appeals against demand notices under the Act may be made to any Magistrate or bench of Magistrates by whom, under the directions of District Magistrates, such class of cases is to be tried. Then Section 111 provides for a revision application against any such decision on appeal by the Magistrate or bench of Magistrates being made to the Court to which appeals against his or their decisions ordinarily lie. In the present case an appeal under Section 110 was made to a First Class Magistrate, from whose decision an appeal lay to the Sessions Court. That would be so in most cases, though there might be a case in which an appeal would lie to a First Class Magistrate. The position is somewhat anomalous, because the question of liability to tax is a purely civil matter, and the Magistrate hearing an appeal against a demand notice is a criminal Court, so that an appeal lies from him to the Sessions Court, and not to the District Court. It was held by this Court in Ahmedabad Municipality v. Vadilal : AIR1928Bom376 that the Sessions Judge in a case of this sort was exercising powers of a civil Court and not of a criminal Court, and, therefore, no revision lay under the Criminal Procedure Code; and I think that the learned Judges in that case rather indicated the view that no revision application lay to this Court in any capacity. Under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 115, the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court, and in Section 3 it is provided that for the purposes of the Code the District Court is subordinate to the High Court. Of course, the Sessions Court is not subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Code, but it has been held that Section 3 of the Civil Procedure Code is not exhaustive, and this Court on many occasions has entertained revision applications against, orders of the Collector passed in revision under the Mamlat-dars' Courts Act, though the 'Collector is not a subordinate Court under Section 3. Those cases also show that the fact that revision is allowed to one Court by a statute does not necessarily exclude a further application in revision to the High Court. It certainly would seems anomalous that this Court should have jurisdiction to revise a civil order made by a District Judge, and a criminal order made by a Sessions Judge, who, of course, is the same individual, but should not have power to revise a civil order made by a Sessions Judge sitting under a statute temporarily as a civil Court. I am disposed to agree with the decision of Mr. Justice Norman in Surat Municipality v. Hamiduddin that this Court has jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code in a proper case to entertain an application in revision against an order in revision passed under Section 111 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, but that such applications should be very sparingly entertained.
3. On the merits in this case the real complaint is that the Sessions Judge has gone wrong in his law. But that is not a ground which would justify us in interfering in revision, in other than very special circumstances. It is a matter of appeal, and no appeal lies.
4. The application fails and must be dismissed with costs.
N.J. Wadia, J.
5. I agree.