Loftus Richard Tottenham and Hamilton Wincup Gordon, JJ.

1. It appears to us that in this case the High Court has nojurisdiction either to entertain a second appeal, or to interfere with theorder of the District Judge under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The matter in dispute is an entry in the record of rightsand of rents settled, made under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Thesettlement appears to have been made ex parte, the Zemindar not having beenpresent. Subsequently the Zemindar objected to the entry, and sought to have itcorrected. The Revenue Officer declined to re-open the matter, and the Zemindarappealed against his order (and apparently she had a right to do so) to theDistrict Judge, who is Special Judge under the Tenancy Act. The District Judgeheld that the only remedy which the Zemindar had was to apply to set aside theex parte order under Section 108* of the Code of Civil Procedure, and hedismissed the appeal. The Zemindar has preferred a second appeal to this Court.

3. It has been pointed out to us by the respondents Vakilthat we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. It appears that the onlycases in which the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain appeals from thedecisions of a Special Judge are cases under Section 106. Clause 3 of Section108 of the Bent Act gives the High Court jurisdiction to hear appeals in suchcases as if the Special Judge were a Court subordinate to the High Court withinthe meaning of Chapter XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 106provides for the hearing and decision of disputes regarding the record ofrights by a Revenue Officer; but that section excludes from a Revenue Officersconsideration disputes regarding the entry of rent settled under the chapter.This entry, therefore, is not such as can be decided or entertained underSection 106; and therefore it appears to us that the High Court has nojurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order of a Special Judge in regard tosettlement of rent. In respect of that entry a Special Judge is not a Courtsubordinate to the High Court; and that being so, we have neither appellatejurisdiction over him, nor any authority under Section 622 of the Code tointerfere with his order.

4. The appeal must, therefore, he dismissed with costs.

* Stating aside decree ex-part against defendant.

[Section 108: In any case in which a decree is passed exparte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree wasmade for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that thesummons was not duly served, or that be was prevented by any sufficient causefrom appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall pass anorder to set aside the decree upon such terms as to costs, payment into Courtof otherwise, as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with thesuit.]

.

Shewbarat Koer vs.Nirpat Roy and Ors. (15.05.1889 - CALHC)