1. In the case of Chunilal Virchand v. Ahmedabad Municipality (1911) 36 Bom 47 it has been decided by a Bench of this Court that no appeal lies from the decision of a District Court under Clause (3) of Section 160 of the Bombay District Municipalities Act. The object of this application is to obtain from the Court a decision that although no appeal would lie, yet an application in revision does lie. Such a decision would, in our opinion, be seriously anomalous, and we do not think that the words of the Statute require us to make such a pronouncement. The only decision which seems to us fairly consistent with that already recorded in Chunilal Virchand's case, (1911) 36 Bom. 47 is the decision that no application for revision is competent. In Balaji Sakharam v. Merwanji Nowroji (1895) 21 Bom. 279 this Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to revise the order of a District Judge acting under Section 23 of the Bombay District Municipalities Act of 1884. And although the words occurring in that section are 'District Judge,' whereas the words occurring in Section 160, last clause, are 'District Court,' we do not think that the distinction is sufficient to support the argument that an application for revision is competent, although admittedly no appeal would lie.
2. The rule, therefore, must, in our opinion, be discharged with costs.
3. There will be one set of costs.
4. We notice that the order in this case was made not by the District Judge but by the Assistant Judge. As, however, no point has been taken on this circumstance, it is unnecessary for us to decide--and, therefore, we do not decide--whether the District Judge was competent under Section 16 of the Civil Courts' Act or otherwise to transfer to the Assistant Judge this particular case.