Gokul Prasad, J.
1. This application for revision arises out of proceedings taken under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The opposite party decree-holder put in an application for execution. The judgment-debtors objected and it was found that some of the allegations made by the decree-holder in that application for execution were incorrect. The judgment-debtors thereupon applied for sanction to prosecute the decree-holder under SECTION 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Munsif granted the application. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge which he transferred to the Additional District Judge for disposal. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for sanction to prosecute. The judgment-debtors come here in revision and their contention before me is that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, regard being had to the provisions of Section 195, Clauses 6 and 7, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the said clauses the order granting sanction can be challenged in the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies from the decision of the lower court. It has to be borne in mind that proceedings taken by a Civil Court under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are, in appeal and revision, deemed by this Court to be proceedings of a civil nature and are, therefore, governed by the rules relating to civil cases. Ordinarily when a District Judge transfers cases to an Additional District Judge for disposal, the Additional District Judge has the same powers in deciding those cases as the District Judge himself has, I see no reason why in the present case, which had been transferred by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge for disposal, the powers of the latter should be deemed to be more circumscribed than those of the District Judge himself. I think the Additional District Judge was fully seised of the case and as such had jurisdiction to pass such orders as he thought proper. For a similar case see Mutsaddi Lal V. Mule Mal (1912) 9 A.L.J. 95. The application in revision fails and is dismissed with costs.