JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The facts which have given rise to this appeal are these:— The appellant, Nanda, who was the judgment-debtor to a decree obtained by Ramji Lal, respondent, made an application to the Court under section 258 of the Code of Civil Procedure asking the Court to issue a notice, to the decree-holders, to show cause why an alleged adjustment of the decree should not be recorded as certified. This application was granted, and thereupon the decree-holder, Ramji Lal, made an application to the Court, under section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the order set aside. The application was headed as an application under section 108. The Court of first instance rejected it. That Court was asked to treat it as an application for review of judgment ‘under section 623 of the Code. The Court refused to treat it as such and expressed no opinion on the merits as to whether any grounds for review existed or not. The decree-holder, Ramji Lal, appealed against the order of the Court of first instance under clause 9 of section 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for an appeal from an order rejecting an application under section 108. In the memorandum of appeal he took a plea to the effect that the Court below ought to have treated the application as one under section 623 and disposed of it as such. The lower appellate Court held that there was no valid ground for interfering with the order made by, the Court of first instance on the application under section 108, but the learned Judge proceeded to observe that although the appellant's appeal could not succeed on the first ground stated in the judgment, he was “entitled, to ask that his application may be treated as an application for review of judgment.” He accordingly set aside the order of the Court below and remanded the case to that Court with directions to restore the application to the file of pending applications and dispose of it as an application for review of judgment. From this order of remand the present appeal has been brought. 2. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that having regard to the provisions of the last paragraph of section 588 of the Code this appeal is not maintainable. From this order of remand the present appeal has been brought. 2. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that having regard to the provisions of the last paragraph of section 588 of the Code this appeal is not maintainable. This would have been a valid contention had the appeal been one from the order dismissing or allowing the appeal preferred under clause 9 of section 588 from the order under section 108. In so far as the appeal to the Court below was an appeal under that clause no appeal lies to this Court from the judgment and order of the lower appellate Court. But in this case the lower appellate Court not only decided the appeal preferred to it from the order under section 108, but proceeded to determine another matter which was not really before the Court by way of appeal, and was only brought to the notice of the Court in one of the grounds of appeal as stated above. That was a ground which impugned the order of the Court of first instance, refusing to treat the application as an application for review of judgment. It is conceded by the learned Vakil for the respondent, as is indeed the law, that no appeal lay from the order of the Court of first instance refusing to treat the application as an application for review of judgment. If, having regard to the 5th ground of appeal, to which we have already referred, the appeal, before the appellate Court, be deemed to have been an appeal from the order refusing to treat the application as an application for review of judgment, the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and, therefore, the order of remand made by that Court was made without jurisdiction. As that order purported to have been made under section 562, an appeal lies to this Court, the order not being, as we have pointed out above, an order made in the appeal under clause 9 of section 588. 3. Even if no appeal lay to this Court we are justified in treating this appeal as an application for revision under section 622 of the Code, and acting under that section we think the order of the Court below should be set aside, being an order passed without jurisdiction. 3. Even if no appeal lay to this Court we are justified in treating this appeal as an application for revision under section 622 of the Code, and acting under that section we think the order of the Court below should be set aside, being an order passed without jurisdiction. Whether, therefore, we deal with the matter as one which has properly come before us in appeal or under our powers under section 622 of the Code, we are of opinion that the order must he set aside. We accordingly reverse the order of the Court below, remanding the case to the Court of first instance with costs.