JUDGMENT : Knox, J. This is an application made by one Ram Lal, asking the Court to set aside in revision the order of the Court below and to grant an application for review which was rejected by that Court. A preliminary objection is raised by the other side to the effect that an order passed upon an application for review when it is for rejecting that application is not open to revision. The learned counsel who had to meet the objection referred to an unreported case of this Court, i.e., Civil Rev., No. 33 of 1900, Mangal Singh v. Bhaya Mahadeo Prasad Singh, decided on the 23rd March 1900, in which a Division Bench of this Court did interfere: in revision: with an order rejecting an application for review. The question however, as to whether such an application could be entertained by this Court does not appear to have been raised or considered in the case just quoted. 2. On looking to the language used in section 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we are of opinion that the intention was that the Court which originally heard the case, should be the Court to decide whether an application to review its former judgment should or should not be granted, and where that Court decides to object such an application, its decision should not be open either to appeal or to revision by a higher Court. Even if we were of opinion that section 622 was intended to apply to proceedings in the following chapter, we do not think that the present case falls within any of the three contingencies in which this Court has power to call for the record of a case. The question which the District Judge of Cawnpore had to consider was whether the case ought to be re-opened on the ground of the discovery of new and important evidence which was not within the knowledge of the applicant when the case was previously heard. The Judge had undoubtedly jurisdiction to decide this question; he decided it, and if, to use the words of the Privy Council in Amir Hasan Khan v. Sheobaksh Singhi, [1884] L.R., 11 I.A., 237. S.C.I.L.R., 11 Cal., 6, he did decide wrongly, he did not exercise his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. For the above reasons we reject this application with costs.