JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— This is an appeal from an order of the lower appellate court affirming an order passed by an Assistant Collector, on the 5th of December, 1902, granting execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the respondent against the appellant. It appears that an application for the execution of that decree was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on the ground of a formal defect in the application on the 13th of May, 1902, Instead of appealing from that order to the District Judge, under the provisions of section 177 of the Tenancy Act of 1901, the decree-holder appealed to the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal, holding that no appeal lay to him, but he reported the case to the Board of Revenue under the provisions of section 185 of the Act, By that section the Board of Revenue is empowered to call for the record of any case, which has come before a Subordinate Revenue Court, other than a suit in which the decree is appealable under section 177. It is conceded that this was a suit in which the decree was appealable to the District Judge, under section 177, and that the appeal to the Collector from the decision of the court of first instance was filed under a misconception. The case being one, in which the Board of Revenue had not the power to call for the record, any order passed by it was without jurisdiction. The Board, however, made an order in the case, and sent it back to the court of first instance with directions that it should allow the decree-holder to amend the application for execution. 2. Upon receipt of this order, and in pursuance of it, the court directed the decree-holder to amend the application within two days, and the application having been amended, it granted execution. It is contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor that the order of the Board of Revenue, being without jurisdiction, the Assistant Collector was not competent to take up the case and to make any order in it, and that the order passed on the 13th of May, 1902, dismissing the application stands good. As we have already said, the Board of Revenue could not in this case, the decree passed in it being appealable to the Judge under section 177, make any order in revision. As we have already said, the Board of Revenue could not in this case, the decree passed in it being appealable to the Judge under section 177, make any order in revision. The order passed by it, therefore, was wholly ultra vires. Such an order did not empower the Assistant Collector to re-hear the case. There, was no application for review of judgment either oral or in writing, and the court did not purport to review its order of the 13th of May, 1902. If the amended-application be regarded as a fresh application for execution, it was clearly beyond time, the amendment having been made after 3 years from the date of the decree—and the amount of the decree not exceeding Rs. 500. Consequently the application, after amendment, could not be treated as an application for which the court had authority to grant execution of the decree. As the court was not legally seized of the case it had no jurisdiction to make any order for execution, and the order, which it passed on the 5th of December, 1902, was an illegal order and cannot be maintained. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the court below with costs.