Harish Chandra, J.
1. These three civil revisions arise out of three similar orders passed by an Assistant Collector of the first class in three similar cases between the same parties under Section 230, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The suits were for profits, instituted by Ramesh Chandra opposite party against Sukhbasilal. After the death of Sukhbasilal, his widow, Mt. Mahadevi, and his son, Shyam Behari Lal were substituted in his place. An application was made on behalf of the applicant that an issue arising out of his contention that the plaintiff was not the proprietor of the land in suit be framed and remitted to the civil Court for a finding. These applications were rejected by the learned Assistant Collector on 28-2-1947, and Shyam Behari Lal has come up in revision from these orders passed by the Assistant Collector. He prays that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector be set aside and his request that an issue be framed and remitted to the civil Court for a finding be allowed.
2. The power of the High Court to interfere otherwise than in appeal with any orders passed by any subordinate revenue Court is governed by Section 276, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. According to this section the High Court is empowered to call for the record of any suit or application which has been decided by any subordinate revenue Court in which such subordinate Court appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The point which arises in this case is whether the orders passed by the learned Assistant Collector on 28-2-1947, come within the purview of the section. It is set out that the orders do decide the applications which had been, presented on behalf of the applicant. But it is not all applications which, in my opinion, can give rise to an application to : the High Court for the exercise of its power of revision under Section 276 of the Tenancy Act. The application contemplated by the section is, in my view, an application under the Act giving rise to a proceeding. Proceedings under the Act may arise when a suit is instituted by some person under the Act or when an application such as is permitted under the Act is made by him. When any such suit or application has been decided by any subordinate revenue Court under the Act, the High Court has, in the circumstances specified in this section, the power to interfere and not otherwise. Applications of all kinds are presented to a Court before which proceedings arising out of a suit or an application under the Act are pending and the High Court has no power under Section 276 to interfere with any orders that the Court may pass on such applications as may be presented to it from time to time during the course of such proceedings.
3. In my opinion no application lies in these cases under Section 276, U.P. Tenancy Act, and the applications are accordingly rejected.