ORDER Seth, J. - The opposite party, Dwarka Singh, applied to the revenue Court at Basti under S. 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for the redemption of a mortgage. His application was registered as a suit and the revenue officer decreed it for redemption without any payment on a finding that the mortgage had been satisfied. Defendants Samujh Kurmi and Natai Kurmi appealed against this decision to the Additional District Judge of Gorakhpur and Basti. The appeal was transferred to the Civil Judge of Basti on 6th April 1945. It was heard by that officer and dismissed on 23rd May 1945. 2. The defendants have applied in revision to this Court and it has been urged on their behalf that the learned Civil Judge bad no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Section 23, Agriculturists' Relief Act, provides that an appeal shall lie to the District Judge from an order of a Collector or Assistant Collector passed under Chapter III in which chapter, S. 12 is included. Section 24, Civil P.C., and S. 22, Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, are the only two provisions which could be availed of for the transfer of the appeal to the Civil Judge, but neither of these sections is applicable to the present case. Under 8. 24, Civil P.C., a case can be transferred only to a Court competent to try and dispose of the same. It is obvious that a Civil Judge is not competent to try and dispose of an appeal from a decision of a revenue Court under S. 23, Agriculturists' Relief Act. Section 22, Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, does not apply because it is confined to appeals from the decrees and orders of Munsifs. It is manifest, therefore, that the learned Civil Judge bad no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and thus his decree cannot be sustained. 3. This application in revision is allowed, the decree of the Civil Judge of Basti is set aside and it is ordered that the appeal be re-transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge of Gorakhpur and Basti to be heard and disposed of by that Court in accordance with law. 4. The question that the Civil Judge of Basti had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal was not put forward in the Memorandum of Revision filed in this Court. 4. The question that the Civil Judge of Basti had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal was not put forward in the Memorandum of Revision filed in this Court. It was raised at the time of the bearing of the case which bad to be adjourned in order to give an opportunity to the counsel for the opposite party to study this question as he was taken by surprise. Under the circumstances, the applicants are not entitled to the costs of this revision. Parties shall bear their own costs in this Court. Other costs will be in the discretion of the lower appellate Court.