Thadani C. J. - This is an application under S. 115, Civil P. C., seeking to revise an order, dated 6-2 1950 passed by the learned Munsiff of Nowgong upon an application made to him on be­half of the Plaintiff Opposite Party under 0. 47, B, l, Civil P. C., and s. 151, Civil P. C. [2] The facts material to the revision applica­tion are these. The plaintiff, one Hazi Formuz Ali, brought a suit against the defendant appli­cant, Surendra Chandra Das, for ejectment, in the Court of the Munsiff of Nowgong. The Munsiff of Nowgong dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs by his judgment, dated 30 11-1943. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and de­cree of the learned Munsiff of Nowgong, and Mr. S. K. Das who heard the appeal, allowed it and decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment, but remanded the case to the Munsiff of Nowgong after framing an issue in these terms: "Whether the Defendants are entitled to claim any compensation on their eviction from the suit lands? If so, what amount of compensation is pajable to which defendant ? With the above direction, the suit be remand­ed to the learned Trial Court for disposal according to law." [3] On receipt of the records, the learned Munsiff of Nowgong after taking evidence, recorded his finding on the issue and passed an order that the records be re-submitted to the First Appellate Court with his finding and the evidence recorded by him. As soon as this order was passed by the learned Munsiff, the plaintiff made an application to the Munsiff under o. 47, B. l and S. 151, Civil P. C., to which we have referred. The learned Munsiff reviewed the order passed by him and de­clined to forward his finding and the evidence to the First Appellate Court. Against this order, the defendant has come to this Court in revision. The learned Munsiff reviewed the order passed by him and de­clined to forward his finding and the evidence to the First Appellate Court. Against this order, the defendant has come to this Court in revision. [4] It is plain that the learned Munsiff has by his order allowing the review application re­interpreted the order of the learned Second Addi­tional Judge, A. V. D., dated 28 11-1946, as an order which did not require the learned Munsiff to submit his finding and evidence on the issue re­manded to him by the First Appellate Court, We do not think the learned Munsiff was competent to review his original order directing the submis­sion of the finding on the issue remanded to him by the First Appellate Court, having regard to the terms of o. 47, B. l, Civil P. C. An erroneous interpretation of an order of remand resulting in a particular order passed by the Court to which the matter has been remanded, is not a ground for review within the meaning of O. 47, B. 1, Civil P.O. [5] We are of the view that in vacating his first order submitting the finding and the evi­dence to the first Appellate Court upon a review application, the learned Munsiff acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction. It is true that under O. 43, B. 1 (w), an appeal lies from an order under B. 4 of 0. 47, Civil P. 0. granting an appli­cation for review, but it is equally true that under B. 7 of 0. 47, Civil P, C., the grounds of objection on appeal are limited in their character. In the case before us, the learned Munsiff has not granted the application because in hip opinion the application for review should be granted, but because he had erred in interpreting the order o! remand passed by the lower Appellate Court. As we have observed, in granting the review applica­tion on this ground, the learned Munsiff acted outside the four corners of 0. 47, B. l, Civil P.O., and, therefore, acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction. In this view, the present revision application under s. 115, Civil P. 0., is competent, and it was not necessary for the applicant to file an appeal against the 2nd order of the Munsiff, to the proper Court. 47, B. l, Civil P.O., and, therefore, acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction. In this view, the present revision application under s. 115, Civil P. 0., is competent, and it was not necessary for the applicant to file an appeal against the 2nd order of the Munsiff, to the proper Court. [6] The question still remains whether this is a fit matter in which we should set aside the 2nd order of the learned Munsiff and restore the first order. The order passed by the lower Appellate Court is in these terms : "I, therefore, pass the following order:-Appeal No. 10/ 46 is dismissed with the learned trial Court's flrding modified as above. Parties should bear their own costs. Appeals Nos. 4/46, 5/46, 6/46, 7/46, 8/46 and 9/46 are allowed and the respective suits are decreed with costs in both the Courts, directing that the plaintiff be put in khas possession of the respective suit land alter evicting the respective defendant therefrom with all structures thereon, and that the judgment with decree of the learned Munsiff be reversed, and further that the decree should net be given effect to until the following issue is tried and decided by the learned trial Court: Issue:-Whether the defendants are entitled to claim any compensation on their eviction from the suit lands ? If so, what amount of compensation is payable to which defendant ? With the above direction, these six suits are remanded to the learned trial Court for disposal, accord­ing to law." [7] It is clear that the learned Appellate Judge has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and while remanding" the ease as the issue framed by him he has not directed the learned Munsiff to submit his finding to the appellate Court. There were in all six appeals before the first Appellate Court from the judg­ments and decrees passed in six suits. The order of remand was made in all the six appeals. The present application has been filed with reference only to one of the six suits, being Suit No. ill of 1944. Now, if we set aside the order of the learned Munsiff in Suit No. Ill of 1944, the orders passed in the remaining suits will remain because no revision application has been filed against his 2nd order passed in those suits. Now, if we set aside the order of the learned Munsiff in Suit No. Ill of 1944, the orders passed in the remaining suits will remain because no revision application has been filed against his 2nd order passed in those suits. We, therefore, do not propose to interfere in revision in the order passed by the learned Munsiff refusing to submit to the lower Appellate Court his finding on the issue remanded to him, together with the evi­dence. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff as a result of his finding on the issue remanded to him is an appealable decree, and it is open to the aggrieved party to file an appeal in a proper Court, if so advised. [8] We, decline to interfere in revision and dismiss the application but in the circumstances of the case with no order as to costs. [9] The rule is discharged accordingly. [10] Ram Labhaya J-I agree. Rule discharged.