Judgment Ramaswami, J. 1. On the 20th of October 1944, the applicants instituted a batch of title suits in the Court of the second Munsiff, Buxar, who had pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 4,000. On the 23rd of January 1945, the defendants filed written statements. Thereafter a Pleader Commissioner was appointed who after making local inspection submitted a report. But on the 22nd of February 1947, the District Judge of Shahabad passed an administrative order transferring the batch of suits from the Court of the second Munsiff to the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Buxar, who had pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 1,000. As the defendants objected that the suits were undervalued, the Munsiff proceeded to take evidence. He eventually decided that six of the title suits, namely, 198, 201, 203, 207, 208 and 209, should be valued between Rs. 1,140 and Rs. 3,360 and were, therefore, beyond his jurisdiction. The Munsiff ordered that the plaints should be returned for presentation to the proper Court. 2. The applicants then prayed to the District Judge of Shahabad that the six title suits should be transferred back to the Court of the second Munsiff, Buxar, where they had been originally filed. The District Judge rejected the petition holding that he had no jurisdiction to transfer the suits when the plaints had been already ordered to be returned. 3. The applicants have now obtained a rule from this Court under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the opposite party that the order of the Munsiff being made under Order 7, Rule 10, an appeal lay to the District Judge and the High Court was precluded from interfering in revision. It is not possible to accept this argument. Sec.115 provides that : "the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto." Plainly construed, the section means that the High Court cannot act only in those cases in which an appeal lies to that Court. The fact that an appeal lies to the lower appellate Court does not take away the High Courts power of revision SASHI KANTA ACHARJYA V/s. NASIRDABAD LOAN OFFICE CO. LTD. The fact that an appeal lies to the lower appellate Court does not take away the High Courts power of revision SASHI KANTA ACHARJYA V/s. NASIRDABAD LOAN OFFICE CO. LTD. 63 Cal L J 105; and DAW MIN BAW V/s. A. V. P. L. N. CHETTYAR FIRM, 11 Rang 134. In TIPAN PRASAD SINGH V/s. SECY. OF STATE, AIR 1935 Pat 86, Fazl Ali, J., (as he then was) emphasised that the section did not mean that the High Court could not interfere if an appeal lay to the inferior Court. It is true that the High Court will be reluctant to interfere in revision when the party has not resorted to a remedy available to him by appeal; but it does not follow that merely because the party has preferred no appeal to the District Judge the High Court has no power to interfere in revision. In the present case I am satisfied that the application in revision is competent. 5 For the applicants learned advocate then argued that the Munsiff ought not have returned the plaints under Order 7, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code in the present case. It is not disputed that the plaints were originally filed in the Court at the second Munsiff, Buxar, who had pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 4,000. In BABUBHAI VAMALCHAND V/s. HIRALAL VAMALCHAND, AIR 1941 Bom 69, a suit for an injunction valued at Rs. 205 was instituted in the first class Subordinate Judges Court. Subsequently by an order of the District Judge the case was sent to the Court of the second class Subordinate Judge who was one of the four Subordinate Judges attached to the first class Courts. The plaintiff then sought to make an amendment to the plaint which having been granted the suit became one beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the second class Subordinate Judge. The latter officer then transferred the suit to the 1st class Court and also reported, the action taken by him to the District Judge who sanctioned the transfer. When the case was taken up by the first class Subordinate Judge, the defendants objected that he had no jurisdiction and that the only legal way of dealing with the case was that the second class Subordinate Judge should have returned the plaint for presentation to the first class Subordinate Judge under Order 7, Rule 10. When the case was taken up by the first class Subordinate Judge, the defendants objected that he had no jurisdiction and that the only legal way of dealing with the case was that the second class Subordinate Judge should have returned the plaint for presentation to the first class Subordinate Judge under Order 7, Rule 10. This argument was negatived by a Division Bench who held that Order 7, Rule 10 was not applicable to the case. 6. For the identical reasons I hold that the order of the Munsiff dated the 28th of April 1947, returning the plaints is improper and must be set aside. 7. Under Sec.24, Civil Procedure Code, ex majore cautela I direct that all the twelve suits (including the six in which plaints were directed to be returned) should be transferred from the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Buxar to the Court of the second Munsiff, Buxar. 8. There will be no order as to costs.