1. This application comes before me by way of review from the judgment of the Ruler exercising the final authority in all judicial matters as Ijlas-i-Alia under Section 3, Mandi State Courts Act, I  of 2002 B.
2. The learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner argues that it is competent for Chief Commissioner to entertain this review under Section 4 of the said Act. Though the Ijlas-i-Alia shall consist of His Highness the Ruler, His Highness may in his discretion determine and appoint a Judicial Committee to hear and decide such appeals, revisions or petitions as may, by order of His Highness, be sent for disposal.
3. His Highness the Ruler had appointed a Judicial Committee which heard and decided the appeal and made their recommendation to His Highness.
4. His Highness, however, did not accept the recommendation and himself decided the case which the learned advocate argues he could not do after having set up a Judicial Committee under Section 5 of the said Act; His Highness can either accept the advice or remand the case to the Court or judge as he considers fit. Once the Judicial Committee is set up and the appeal is heard by the Committee, His Highness the Ruler becomes functus officio and cannot exercise the powers of Ijlas-i-Alia under Section 4, Mandi State Courts Act. There is some force in this argument but this application is a review of the final order of His Highness the Ruler. Order 47, Rule 2, Civil P.C., lays down that where a decree is passed by a 'Judge other than a High Court Judge and the review is sought upon grounds other than the discovery of new and important matter or evidence or (b) some clerical or arithmetical mistake or error apparent on the face of the decree (as is the case here), the application shall he made to the very judge who passed the decree; it cannot be made to his successor in office.
5. Under the law this review application should have been made to His Highness the Rules but under the Himachal Pradesh Administration Order, the Chief Commissioner exercises the functions of the Darbar and therefore it may be argued that the Chief Commissioner should hear this review. But in the eye of law, the Chief Commissioner is a successor in office and he cannot entertain the review application because the review application is directed against a judgment and decree passed by His Highness as a Judge other than a High Court Judge. See Moheshur Singh v. Bengal Government 7 M.I.A.283; Ram Baran Chaube v. Bhagwati : AIR1925All804 and Sarangpani v. Narayanaswami 8 Mad. 567.
6. This application for review is therefore incompetent and should be dismissed. In the special circumstances of the case each party will bear his own cost in this Court and I shall advise the Chief Commissioner accordingly.