H.D. Ujjwal—This is a revision application against an order of the S. D. O., Rajgarh, dated 12.2.1952 dismissing the application for redemption of mortgage filed by the revision petitioner. 2. Originally the petitioner had filed a suit for redemption of mortgage in the court of the then Collector of Alwar and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal the case was remanded by the Revenue Minister, Alwar for further enquiry. The Collector Alwar then dismissed the application for redemption. But on revision the order was set aside by the Matsya Board of Revenue and the case was remanded for decision in accordance with law. 3. With the coming into force of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 as such applications were triable by the Assistant: Collectors, the case was transferred to the court of S.D.O., Rajgarh. The S.D.O., Rajgarh without going into the merits of the case dismissed the application simply on the ground that regular suits are not required to be filed for redemption of mortgage and an application can be made for redemption so he dismissed the pending application and directed the plaintiff to file a regular application. 4. It is not clear what the learned S.D.O. means by filing a regular application. Although originally it was a suit for redemption, it was later treated as an application for redemption under the Alwar Code and was pending as such when the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 came into force. According to sec. 7 of this Act all suits, cases, appeals, applications, references and proceedings pending before any Revenue Court on coming into force of this Act were to be deemed to have commenced under this Act and were to be tried, heard and determined in a manner prescribed by this Act. 5. According to the above provision the cases pending for redemption of mortgage should have been deemed to have commenced under this Act and the S.D.O. should have proceeded to dispose of it as an application for redemption on merits. He should not have dismissed the application. 6. 5. According to the above provision the cases pending for redemption of mortgage should have been deemed to have commenced under this Act and the S.D.O. should have proceeded to dispose of it as an application for redemption on merits. He should not have dismissed the application. 6. The S.D.O. had jurisdiction to determine the case and by refusing to do so he failed to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in him and, therefore, this revision application is accepted with the concurrence of my learned colleague and the case is remanded to the S.D.O. Bahror for disposal according to law. K. S. Ranawat—1 concur.