Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (May 14, 1907) affirming a decree of the additional Subordinate Judge of Monghyr (November 28, 1905). On January 2, 1900, a mahal in which the respondent was a co-sharer was sold for arrears of revenue. Two appeals to annul the sale were preferred to the Commissioner under the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859, s. 38, as amended by the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1868. One of these appeals was by the respondent, and was dismissed on the ground that the auction purchaser had not been made a defendant. The second appeal was by other co-sharers in the mahal, and in this appeal the Commissioner, on March 23, 1900, made an order annulling the sale on the ground of an irregularity in the sale notice. This order referred to the entire mahal. On June 21, 1900, the Commissioner having come to the conclusion that his order of March 23, 1900, was wrong in law, reviewed it and made an order upholding the sale. On November 21, 1900, a sale certificate was issued to the auction purchaser, who went into possession. Law Rep. 40 Ind. App. 54 ( 1912- 1913) Baijnath Ram Goenka V. Nand Kumar Singh 2 On June 20, 1901, the respondent commenced the present suit, praying for a declaration that the order of June 21, 1900, was ultra vires and illegal and for a decree for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The additional Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, who tried the suit, held that the order of March 23, 1900, setting aside the sale was a final order and was not open to review. He therefore made the order prayed for by the respondent. The High Court affirmed this decision. De Gruyther, K. C., and Branson, for the appellant. There is no provision in the Acts of 1859 and 1808, or elsewhere, as to the conduct of proceedings thereunder before the Commissioner. He has power to settle his own procedure, including a discretionary power to review his own decision Badaricharya v. Ramchandra Go pal Savant (( 1893) I. L. R. 19 Bomb. 113.) ; Ramchandra v. Draupadi. (( 1895) I. L. R. 20 Bomb. He has power to settle his own procedure, including a discretionary power to review his own decision Badaricharya v. Ramchandra Go pal Savant (( 1893) I. L. R. 19 Bomb. 113.) ; Ramchandra v. Draupadi. (( 1895) I. L. R. 20 Bomb. 281.) The word "final" in s. 2 of the Act of 18G8 means only " not subject to appeal." The Commissioner, acting as a revenue officer, had a discretionary power to review his order Mantangini Debi v. Girish Chandra. (( 1903) I. L. R. 30 Calc. 619.) The decision in Lala Pryag Lal v. Jai Narayan Singh (( 1895) I. L. R. 22 Calc. 419.) rested upon the fact that the Code of Civil Procedure was in fact expressly made applicable to the Act of 1880, then under discussion; from this it was inferred that the provisions of the Code relating to review were intended to be excluded. This is not applicable to the Act of 1868. Dube, for the respondent, was not called upon. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD ATKINSON. Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the order of March 23, 1900, was final and conclusive, and that, so far as the Commissioner was concerned, he had no power to review that order in the way in which he has reviewed it. That is the only point in the case. They will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed. The appellant must pay the costs.