Edgley, J.This rule was issued against an order of a special appellate officer appointed u/s 40, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act of 1936. The only point which arises for consideration in connexion with this rule is whether this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with this order u/s 115, Civil P.C. It has been held by a decision of this Court, to which I was a party, namely the case in Ellis Stella Beaumont Vs. English Motor Car Co., , that the High Court has no power to revise an order of this nature u/s 115, Civil P.C., as such an appellate officer is not a Civil Court within the meaning of Clause 16 of the Letters Patent which does not cover Courts set up by a special statute for a special purpose. The learned advocate for the petitioners argues that the case now before us may be distinguished on account of the fact that the special officer, against whose decision this rule is directed happened to be a Munsif. I am of opinion however that this fact makes no difference whatsoever in the case. The Munsif in question was clearly appointed for a special purpose u/s 40, Bengal Agricultural, Debtors Act, which provides that the orders of the appellate officer shall be final. The procedure of this officer is regulated not under the ordinary provisions of the CPC but it is provided by Sub-section 3 of Section 40 read with Section 55 of the Act that the Local Government may make rules not only as regards the procedure to be followed by the appellate officer but also with regard to the control and inspection of his work. It is clear from the provisions of the Act that this officer cannot in any way be subordinate to the High Court but, if he is subordinate to any authority, it would appear that he must be subordinate to the Local Government. It therefore follows that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere u/s 115, Civil P.C. This rule must therefore be discharged. The parties will bear their own costs.

S.K. Ghose, J.

2. I agree.