1. This and the connected Civil Revns. Nos. 248 to 250 of 1932 arise out of four suits for profits, brought by the opposite party against the applicant, in the Court of an Assistant Collector, Shahjahanpur. The defendant raised a question of proprietary title, on which an issue was struck by the Assistant Collector and remitted to the Munsif for trial and finding under Section 271, Agra Tenancy Act. On receipt of the finding which was in favour of the plaintiff and was binding on the Assistant Collector, the suits for profits were decreed. The applicant preferred four appeals to the Court of the District Judge impugning the correctness of the Munsif's finding and the decision of the Assistant Collector. No appearance was entered on behalf of the applicant, who was the appellant before the District Judge, and his appeals were consequently dismissed. He applied for an order of restoration of the appeals, but his application was also dismissed. He appealed to this Court from the order of the District Judge refusing to restore the appeals, but was unsuccessful.
2. The present four applications for revision have been filed and the decrees of the Assistant Collector are sought to be revised under Section 253, Agra Tenancy Act. That section, like Section 115, Civil P.C. confers very limited powers on this Court. It is only if the subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it illegally or with material irregularity that this Court can interfere. Of the ten grounds taken in revision there is none which can be considered to raise any question of jurisdiction, want of jurisdiction or the exercise of it illegally or with material irregularity. The learned advocate for the applicant desired to criticise the proceedings of the Munsif which he contends should be considered as part of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector. I do not think the contention is correct. Section 253, Agra Tenancy Act, under which the present revision has been filed, can only justify the examination of the orders of 'subordinate Revenue Courts.' The proceedings of the Munsif cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered to be part and parcel of the proceedings of the Subordinate Revenue Court before whom the suits for profits were pending and which referred the issue as to title to the civil Court. The latter cannot be considered to be a Revenue Court only because it decides an issue remitted to it under Section 271, j Tenancy Act. It was open to the applicant to have contested the Munsif's' finding before the District Judge in appeal, but he missed that opportunity and cannot now impugn it under cover of Section 253. The grounds taken in revision might have been such as could be urged in appeal, but they are not good grounds in revision which has therefore no force and is dismissed with costs.