JUDGMENT Mootham, J. - This is an appeal u/s 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a refusal by the Civil Judge of Bijnor to make a complaint u/s 476 of that Code. We are of opinion that the appeal has no merits, and we think that there is no justification for directing the issue of notice to the Respondents. It has however been argued by Mr. Jagnandan Lal for the Appellant that we have no power summarily to dismiss the appeal and that notice must issue. 2. There appears to, be no direct authority in this Court on the point, and although it has been held by the Calcutta, Madras and Patna High Courts that a Court before which an appeal u/s 476-B is filed has the power which we ourselves seek to exercise, in each instance the appeal arose out of the proceedings of a Criminal Court and the decision proceeded on the basis that the appellate Court could, in such circumstances exercise some, if not all, of the powers vested in an appellate Court under Ch. XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure including the power u/s 421 to dismiss an appeal summarily: see Muhammad Bayetulla v. Emperor (1931) 58 Cal 402, A, T. Krisnanchari v. Emperor A I R 1933 Mad 767. and Baidyanath Giri v. Emperor (193 1) Cri L J 735. 3. In the persent case the appeal is from the decision of a Civil Court, and it has been laid down by this Court that in such circumstances the proceedings u/s 476-B are to be regarded as civil; In the matter of the petition of Bhup Kunwar (1904) 26 All 249 and the view has been taken that this section must accordingly be read with such provisions of the CPC as may be relevant: Emperor v. ManiLal 1937 A W R 290 (F. B.) 4. I can see nothing in the terms of S. 476-B which would, in such circummstances, make inapplicable the provisions of O.l(sic) r. 11 of the CPC Code, and in my opinion we have, therefore, under that Rule, authority to dismiss the appeal summarily: and I would di so. Mathur, J. 5. I agree.