Mithan Lal, J.
1. The only point involved in this case is whether the Judicial Officer to whom an issue had been remitted could set aside its own finding after the file had been returned to the Civil Court.
2. Learned counsel for the parties could not show anything either in favour or against it. But one thing which may be noted is that in all such cases where an issue is remitted either by the Civil. Court to the revenue court or by the revenue court to the Civil Court, because of the provisions of law, for a finding, it has to be taken that the suit having been instituted in the court of correct jurisdiction the Court to which the issue is referred only acts as a Court of concurrent jurisdiction. This is more so because the finding on the issue given by such a Court has to be accepted by the court in which the suit was filed and the suit haw to be decided in view of that finding. In either case where the suit is instituted in the Civil Court and the issue is referred to the revenue court or where the suit is instituted in the revenue court find the issue is referred to the Civil Court an appeal lies in the Civil Court and consequently a revision shall also lie to the High Court if Section 115, Civil Procedure Code is read with the provisions of Section 106. The revenue court which set aside its finding acted as a Civil Court and it could set aside its finding in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. A reference may also be made to the provisions of Section 341 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act under which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Indian Limitation Act and the Court Fees Act have been made applicable to the proceedings under the said Act unless otherwise expressly provided. It would thus appear that the revenue court could act in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code and set aside the finding on sufficient grounds.
3. It has been contended that inherent jurisdiction could not be exercised after the finding wassent back to the Civil Court and that the revenueCourt became functus officio after that. This contention does not appear to be sound because if aCourt has inherent jurisdiction that inherent jurisdiction will continue till the case is finally disposedof and in such cases the final disposal of the casecan only be done when the Munsif after acceptingthe finding has given its own judgment. As long asthe Munsif did not act upon the finding and didnot pronounce the judgment the inherent jurisdiction of the revenue court continued and in theexercise of that jurisdiction the Judicial Officercould recall the file and could set aside the findingon sufficient reasons. This is exactly what hasbeen done in this case and so the order challenged in this revision cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the revision must fail. The revisionfails and is dismissed but no order is made as tocosts.