JUDGMENT : CHAMIER, J. This is an application for revision of the judgment and decree of a District Judge, dismissing an appeal against an order of an Assistant Collector of the first class that an award made on a matter referred to arbitration without the intervention of court should be filed. It is contended that an appeal lay to the District Judge under section 104(1)(f), Code of Civil Procedure. The provision referred to is to the effect that an appeal shall lie, but does not indicate the authority or court to which the appeal is to be presented. In order to find out whether the appeal in this case lay to the District Judge, one must refer to the Tenancy Act. That Act makes no provision for an appeal to the District Judge against an order of the kind passed by the Assistant Collector in this case. The law relating to appeals from Assistant Collectors of the first class under the Tenancy Act is to be found in sections 177, 178 and 179. It is obvious that neither section 178 nor section 179 applies to this case. Section 177, which relates to appeals to the District Judge, does not authorize an appeal against an order, such as was passed by the Assistant Collector in the present case. Under section 177 appeals lie to the District Judge in suits included in group A and group B of Schedule IV of the Act, It was suggested that the order in question should be regarded as having been passed in a suit of the kind described in No. 16 or No. 17 of group B. But a suit registered under paragraph 20 of Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot possibly be regarded as a suit by a co-sharer against a lambardar or co-sharer for a share of profits or for a settlement of accounts. 2. The circumstance that the matter referred to arbitration by the parties was the amount of profits due to the present applicant in respect of his share does not make the suit registered tinder paragraph 20, a suit for a share of profits. It is not for me to consider whether an application or appeal could have been presented to the Commissioner or any other authority in this case. All that I have to see is whether an appeal lay to the District Judge. It is not for me to consider whether an application or appeal could have been presented to the Commissioner or any other authority in this case. All that I have to see is whether an appeal lay to the District Judge. I hold that no appeal lay to him. This application is dismissed with costs.