JUDGMENT Chakravartti, J. - A preliminary objection has been taken to the competence of this Rule. In my opinion, the objection must be upheld. 2. The Rule arises out of an application made under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act by certain debtors. The decree was one for rent and in execution of that decree the landlords decree-holders purchased the lands of the holding concerned at a price of Rs. 3, 000. Upon the application under sec. 37A, it was held by the Board that nothing was due and restoration was ordered. That order was upheld by the Appellate Officer but reversed by the District Judge in revision who dismissed the debtors' application under sec 37A. It was against that order that the present Rule was issued. 3. The Rule was taken out from Mr. Justice Mukherjee, sitting singly. It was stated in the petition that the application was valued at below Rs. 2, 000. The objection taken on behalf of the Opposite Party is that the valuation exceeds Rs. 2, 000 and inasmuch as the order complained of is an order of a District Judge, a Judge sitting singly was not competent to deal with this matter. The Appellate Side Rules provide that every application for revision shall state the value of the suit to which the application relates. Clearly the implication of that provision is that ordinarily the test for determining the value of an application for revision shall be the value of the smt. That test, however, does not apply to an application under sec. 37A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, because it has no reference to a suit. The matter must be governed by the language of the recent amendment to the Appellate Side Rules, namely, paragraph 3 of the Schedule to Chapter II, which empowers single Judges to hear applications against orders of Judges other than Munsifs up to the value of Rs. 2, 000.' It follows that the order must relate to a matter valued at Rs. 2, 000 or less. In the present case, the Petitioners by their application under sec. 37A were asking for restoration of lands and it was found by the Board that nothing was due from them to the decree-holders;. They were, therefore, asking for restoration of properties of the value of at least Rs. 3, 000 which was the price fetched at the execution sale. In the present case, the Petitioners by their application under sec. 37A were asking for restoration of lands and it was found by the Board that nothing was due from them to the decree-holders;. They were, therefore, asking for restoration of properties of the value of at least Rs. 3, 000 which was the price fetched at the execution sale. By the order of the District Judge they lost property of that value. It is, therefore, clear that the order of the. District Judge relates to a subject-matter of which the value is at least Rs. 3, 000. If that be so, a learned Judge of this Court, sitting singly, had no jurisdiction to issue the rule that was actually issued. The consequence of a Rule being issued by a Judge sitting singly which is beyond his jurisdiction under the distribution of business in this Court was considered in two cases, namely, Nishi Kanta Ghose v. Barada Kanta Bose 34 C.W.N. 780 (1930) and Mahitosh Dutt v. Rai Satish Chandra Chaudhury 34 C.W.N. 878 (1939) In both of them, it was held that the Rule should be discharged. In view of that settled practice of this Court, the only order which I can make is to discharge the Rule. There will be no order as to costs.