ORDER This petition for revision has been preferred under S. 34 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 and under Ss. 115 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, and is directed against the order dated 22-7-53, of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ukhrul in C. S. No. 335 of 1952-53, whereby he dismissed petitioners claim which was for Rs. 12/- on account of the price of a tree, which the opposite party was alleged to have felled and removed from the (Uyok) of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner as the Hill Bench, but he returned the memo, of appeal by his order dated 22-11-56 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, in view of the decision of this Court in Konsam Amujao Singh v. Paejathang Haokip, Writ Misc. Petn. No. 33 of 1953 D/-31-01-55 (reported in AIR 1955 Manipur 30 ) (A) whereby the order of the Chief Commissioner (Notification No. J/12/51/23, dated 23-5-1951) constituting the Deputy Commissioner as the Hill Bench and himself as the Chief Court for purposes of the Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation, 1947 was pronounced to be ultra vires and of no force, 2. It might be stated at once, that there is nothing in the case, which would attract the provisions of S. 34 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955. No important question of law or custom, requiring further consideration was involved in the suit, and as such the petitioner cannot invoke that section. 3 It is necessary to state before proceeding further, in brief, the history of the constitution of Courts in this territory at the relevant time. In 1947, that is, before Merger, the Maharaja passed an Act known as the Manipur State Courts Act, 1947, which laid down the Constitution of Courts, their powers, etc the highest court constituted being the Chief Court. As regards the Hill area of Manipur S. 32 provided that the administration of justice in the Hill Tracts shall be governed by the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947, and it is this Regulation with the provisions of which we are here concerned, as the claim abovementioned arose from the Hill area. 4 By that Regulation Civil justice was to be administered in the Hill area, by the following courts: 5 It will be evident that the Chief Court then consisted of more than one Judge. 4 By that Regulation Civil justice was to be administered in the Hill area, by the following courts: 5 It will be evident that the Chief Court then consisted of more than one Judge. In 1950 (January) The Central Government passed an order called the Manipur State Courts (Amendment) Order, 1950, whereby the Chief Court was converted into a Judicial Commissioners Court with a single Judge, namely, the Judicial Commissioner and all references to the Chief Court or Chief Judge in the Manipur State Courts Act, 1947 were to be read as referring respectively to the Court of Judicial Commissioner and Judicial Commissioner. Certain other and consequential amendments were also embodied with which we are not here concerned; but it is of some significance to note that S. 33 of the Manipur State Courts Act, 1947 which stood in these terms: "33. For the exercise of the functions vested in it by the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947, the Chief Court shall in all cases sit with two Assessors who shall be nominated for each particular case by the member of the Executive Council responsible for Hill Administration." was amended by substituting the words "Chief Commissioner in place of the words "member of the Executive Council responsible for Hill Administration", indicating clearly that there was no intention to do away with the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947. That was also the position under the law, as would also be further clear from paragraph 5 of the Manipur (Administration) Order, 1949, reproduced below: "5. Existing laws to continue: All laws in force in Manipur or any part thereof immediately before the commencement of this order shall continue in force until repealed or amended by a competent legislature or authority. Existing laws to continue: All laws in force in Manipur or any part thereof immediately before the commencement of this order shall continue in force until repealed or amended by a competent legislature or authority. Provided that all powers exercisable under the said laws by His Highness the Maharaja or the Government of the State shall be exercisable by the Chief Commissioner." 6 Since no amendments were made to the said Regulation, a situation which may be described as stalemate arose as far as the administration of justice in the Hill Tracts was concerned, and a further difficulty was created because the Chief Commissioner by his order No. 18 of 1950 (Notification No. A-1-3424-29, dated 18-1-1950) abolished the Hill Circles and constituted new Sub-divisions under Sub-Divisional Officers shall exercise Civil powers as regards tribal areas included within their Subdivisions, in accordance with Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation, 1947, but still no amendment was made to the said Regulation. The area from which the present claim arose was included in the Sub-Division of Ukhrul. 7 The difficulty that arose was to some extent realised, but instead of having the Regulation amended by a competent authority the Chief Commissioner by his order published in Notification No. J/18/51/23, dated 23-5-1951, constituted the Deputy Commissioner as the Hill Bench and himself as the Chief Court for the purposes of the Regulation. This, he was clearly incompetent to do and paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Manipur (Administration) Order, 1949, under which he purported to act, could not be invoked for that purpose. The question arose in Writ Misc. Petn No. 33 of 1953 of this Court (reported in AIR 1955 Manipur 30 (A) ) before my learned predecessor, and he held the same and pronounced that order to be ultra vires and of no force. I am in respectful agreement with that view and the reasons given in support, and it will be enough to state that these changes could not be brought about except by amending the provisions of the Regulation which was clearly the law or had the force of law on the subject, and the competent authority to make those amendments was then the Central Government, acting under sections 3 and 4 of the Extra-Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947 (XLVII of 1947) or the Parliament after the coming into force of the Constitution. It is well established that there can be no delegation of the power to legislate, and even if paragraph 4 of the Manipur (Administration) Order, 1949, were to be construed - though H is difficult to read that meaning as giving that power, it would be of no avail, and the Chief Commissioners order in that respect would not be intra vires. 8 The clear picture that emerges then is, that though the Regulation was in force at least some of the Courts as required by it were nonexistent. It is also not known whether the Village Authorities continued to function or not. Most probably they were abolished by implication, by the giving of civil powers to the S. D. Os. The result is that the S. D. O. who entertained the present suit had absolutely no jurisdiction as he was not a properly constituted court under the law. The same was the position of the Deputy Commissioner as regards his being the Hill Bench. He could not therefore entertain the appeal. ``9It is also well settled that where there is absolutely no jurisdiction the order or decree of a court will be a nullity and must be ignored. The order, judgment or decree of the S. D. O. by whatever name it is called is thus of no force and does not at all bind the parties. It is thus open to the petitioner to ignore that decision and bring a fresh suit, in Appellant proper court (such a court was established after the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 came into force), that is, another remedy is open to him. The exercise of the revisional power is purely discretionary. It is an extra-ordinary power and it is well established that such power will not be ordinarily exercised when there is any other remedy available to the aggrieved party. It is also doubtful if for reasons already stated above, it can be said that there was a decision by a court subordinate to the High Court as required by S. 115 C. P. C. I do not therefore think that the matter can be dealt with under that section. 10. But that is not the only provision under which a High Court can interfere. In suitable cases it is open to the High Court to act under Art. 227 of the Constitution. 10. But that is not the only provision under which a High Court can interfere. In suitable cases it is open to the High Court to act under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It will not be disputed that the Court of S. D. O. is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Art. 227 and it is clear that he acted without jurisdiction though of course unwittingly. The plaintiff was also led to file the suit in his court because of the unfortunate situation that was brought about due to the circumstances already adverted to. These are special circumstances which cannot be ignored and I think that ends of justice require that this court should give such relief under Art. 227 as might be possible, even though the remedy of a fresh suit provided limitation is condoned might be available to him. In the peculiar circumstances for which the petitioner cannot be blamed he must be saved the harassment of having to bring a fresh suit which will again involve the doubtful issue of limitation. 11 I, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the S. D. O. and direct that the plaint shall be returned by him to the petitioner for presentation to the proper court for trial according to the law. I am aware of the fact that, that suit will lie in the court of S. D. O., Ukhrul, who has been invested with the powers of a Munsiff under S. 39 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955, but that does not in any way alter the position. The plaint must be returned to the petitioner and represented on the civil side. Lower Courts would do well, in this connection, to remember the principle laid down in Ledgard v. Bull, 13 Ind App 134 (PC) (B) and also referred to in the commentaries under S. 21 in C. P. C. by Mulla. The present is a case, where the court entertaining the suit had absolutely no inherent jurisdiction. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order for costs. Order accordingly.