Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.
1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this revision. The copy of the order is misleading inasmuch as it suggests that the order was passed by the District Judge of Jaunpur. The plaint was filed in the civil Court for declaration of title to certain occupancy holdings and in the alternative for possession, alleging that the defendants were mortgagees of the same and were denying the plaintiff's title. Objection was taken as to the jurisdiction of the civil Court, and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court. The plaint was then filed in the Court of the Assistant Collector of Jaunpur, who apparently came to the conclusion that the plaint ought to be amended and gave time to the plaintiffs to do so. They failed to amend it. The Assistant Collector then ordered the plaint to be rejected.
2. A revision has been filed from the order of the Assistant Collector and a preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies.
3. Under Section 253, Agra Tenancy Act, the. High Court can exercise its power of revision where a case has been decided by any subordinate revenue Court, in which an appeal lies to the District Judge, but no appeal lies to the High Court.
4. The learned advocate for the respondents contends that this was a case in which no appeal lay to the District Judge at all, and that therefore this High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in revision. The plaint as filed in the revenue Court was for declaration and in the alternative for possession. In the application which was filed along with the plaint it was expressly recited that the suit was one under Section 121, Tenancy Act. If that be the fact, then according to the table given in Schedule 4 an appeal in such a suit lies to the Commissioner and not to the District Judge. Section 253 therefore would not be applicable.
5. Even assuming in favour of the plaintiffs that their suit could be brought as claimed under Section 99, Tenancy Act, an appeal would still lie to the Commissioner and not to the District Judge. It follows that in either view of the case this was not a suit in which an appeal would have lain to the District Judge if the suit had been disposed of. It is therefore quite clear that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in revision under Section 253.
6. It is unnecessary for us to say whether the plaintiffs have any remedy by way of revision to the Board of Revenue, or whether it would have been more appropriate to have recourse to the provisions of Section 267, Tenancy Act, for reference to the High Court. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs.