Pandrang Rao, J.
1. This is a petition to revise the decree of the Agency District Munsif of Rayagada dated 31st December, 1932, in O.S. No. 62 of 1931, a suit for settlement of partnership accounts between the plaintiffs and the defendants and for recovery of the amount due to the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit both parties agreed to refer the suit to arbitration under Rule 46 of the Agency Rules. The Panchayat that was constituted passed an award for a certain amount in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed certain objections to this decision but the objections were overruled and a decree was passed in terms of that decision.
2. A preliminary point is raised by the respondents in this revision petition to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Petition. This objection is apparently based on the ground that the Agency Rules themselves contemplate revision petitions being entertained by the Agent, any further revision petitions being entertained by the Government who may refer them if necessary to the High Court. It is contended that these provisions in the Agency Rules are inconsistent with the power conferred on the High Court by Section 107 of the Government of India Act and Clause 16 of the Letters Patent. We are however unable to see any inconsistency between the Agency Rules and the provisions relating to the power of superintendence possessed by the High Court. Section 107 of the Government of India Act and Clause 16 of the Letters Patent are very clear on the question of jurisdiction. The first provides that wherever there is appellate jurisdiction, the High Court shall have powers of superintendence and the second provides that the High Court shall be a Court of appeal from all Civil Courts in the Presidency. The Agency District Munsif's Court of Rayagada is a Civil Court and it is also subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. On these grounds the jurisdiction of the High Court is undoubted and we have no hesitation in dismissing the, preliminary objection of the respondent.
3. On the merits, however, we see no reason to interfere in revision. The decree was one passed in accordance with the decision of the arbitrators and there is no reason to suppose that the decision was unjust or inconclusive.
4. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.