In Re. V. Tirupuliswamy Naidu v.

SATYANARAYANA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter was placed before us for orders as to whether the appeal lies against the order of the learned Chief Justice in C. B. P. No. 473 of 1954. The civil revision petition was filed both under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and also under Art. 227 of the Constitution. In the revision petition, the learned Chief justice disposed of the matter on merits and agreed with the learned District. Judge that the respondent ceased to hold office because of the supervening disqualification that he had become a leper. In that view the learned Chief Justice thought it unnecessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent that the civil revision petition was Itself. Incompetent, because the district Judge acting under Section 51 of the District Municipalities Act was only a persona designata and not a court. The Jurisdiction that was Invoked whether it rightly falls under Section 115, Civil P. C. , or under Article 227 of the Constitution in our opinion, is the revisional jurisdiction and not the extraordinary original juris diction like the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 238 of the Constitution. Under the Letters Patent an appeal lies against the decision of a single Judge of this Court only if it is a judgment which was not rendered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Letters Patent was amended in 1927, In our opinion the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is revisional jurisdiction and the appeal is therefore income tent. The S. R. is rejected.