JUDGMENT Mithan Lal, J. - This civil revision filed by the defendant is directed against an order of the IV Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, refusing to entertain an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif in the following circumstances. 2. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 90 on the basis of a parole debt in the Nyaya Panchayat. This case, on an application made by the defendant under Sec. 85 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, was withdrawn by Munsif Havali, Kanpur, and was then sent for trial to the court of the IV Additional Munsif who tried the suit and decreed it. The defendant filed an appeal but the learned IV Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, dismissed it on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable as the Munsif who heard the case heard it as a special court constituted under Sec. 85 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and as there was no provision in the said Act for filing an appeal the appeal is not maintainable. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 3. It has been contended by Sri M. M. Gopal, learned counsel for the applicant that after a suit is withdrawn from a Nyaya Panchayat under the orders of a Munsif the Munsif who tries the suit does it as a Munsif exercising jurisdiction under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act and not as a special Munsif and consequently the judgment and decree in such a suit is appealable under the provisions of the C.P.C. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The relevant portion of Sec. 85 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act lays down :- "(1) On the application of any of the parties or on his own motion without such notice the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Munsif or the Sub-Divisional Officer, according as the case pending before a Nyaya Panchayat is a (Criminal, Civil or Revenue case) may, at any stage withdraw the same and (i) try to dispose of the same, or (ii) transfer it to another Bench of the Nyaya Panchayat, or (iii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any other Magistrate, Munsif, or Assistant Collector competent to try or dispose of the case. (2) Where any criminal, civil or revenue case has been withdrawn under sub-Sec. of the court or officer who thereafter tries such criminal, civil or revenue case may either try it or proceed from the point at which it was withdrawn." 5. This section has been substituted by old section in 1955. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Munsif or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, who withdraws a case whether criminal, civil or revenue, from Nyaya Panchayat and disposes of the same either himself or by transferring it to some other Magistrate, Munsif or Assistant Collector competent to try and dispose of the case, does so not as persona designata but as a court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Munsif or Sub-Divisional Officer exercising their ordinary jurisdiction. This view is fully supported by the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Talkies Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 606. 6. All the above expressions have been defined in Sec. 2 of the Act. Under the definition the `Munsif' means with reference to a Gaon Panchayat a Munsif having local jurisdiction in the area in which the Gaon Panchayat is constituted. The Munsif exercises local jurisdiction in the area, under the provisions of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act and so when he withdraws the suit by exercising powers under Sec. 85 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act he withdraws it in his capacity and in exercise of his jurisdiction as a Munsif. The trial of the suit by the Munsif who withdraws it or by any other Munsif having jurisdiction to whom it may have been transferred will be under the jurisdiction conferred upon such Munsif under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act and not under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. It does not appear to be the intention of Sec. 85 of the Act that & the Munsif when he tries the suit after withdrawing it from a Nyaya Panchayat tries it as a special court or tribunal or he acts as a special Munsif or a persona designata. It does not appear to be the intention of Sec. 85 of the Act that & the Munsif when he tries the suit after withdrawing it from a Nyaya Panchayat tries it as a special court or tribunal or he acts as a special Munsif or a persona designata. The Munsif exercises the power of withdrawal and then tries the suit as Munsif pure and simple or Munsif as a class exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act and so any decree passed in such a suit after withdrawal would be a decree passed by the Munsif in his local jurisdiction and would be appeal able under Part VII of the C.P.C. It appears to be the reason why the Legislature did not make any provision for the filing of appeal under Sec. 85 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and made only a provision for the withdrawal of the suit. 7. The learned counsel for the other side made a reference to the provisions of Sec. 83 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and contended that to cases filed in Panchayat Adalat the provisions of the C.P.C., the Indian Evidence Act etc. do not apply and consequently even thought the suit may have been withdrawn from the Panchayati Adalat and may have been disposed of by the Munsif, yet the disposal of such a suit would be of a suit of Nyaya Panchayat and not a Munsif's suit disposed of in his ordinary jurisdiction. For this purpose he relied upon the case of Bansi v. State, A.I.R. 1952 Allahabad 38 but that case or the principle laid down in that case has no application to the present case. That case was decided on the interpretation of Sec. 85(5) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act read with Sec. 83 of the Act and what was observed by the learned single Judge was that under sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 85 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, no revision would lie to the High Court under Sec. 435, Cr. P. C., as Sec. 85(5) has an over riding effect. The learned Judge further observed that the provisions of Sec. 83 would apply to the entire suit or the entire proceeding whether pending or decided by a Panchayati Adalat. P. C., as Sec. 85(5) has an over riding effect. The learned Judge further observed that the provisions of Sec. 83 would apply to the entire suit or the entire proceeding whether pending or decided by a Panchayati Adalat. It was nowhere laid that the provisions of that section would apply to cases which have been withdrawn under the orders of the appropriate authority under Sec. 85 and have been decided by courts other than Panchayati Adalat. In this case the decree passed by the Munsif after withdrawing the suit from the Panchayati Adalat was passed by him in his capacity as a Munsif and not any special court or tribunal and so that decree was open to appeal under the provisions of the C.P.C. The order passed by the learned IV Additional Civil Judge. Kanpur cannot, therefore, be sustained and must be set aside. 8. The revision is allowed with costs. The order passed by the court below is set aside. The appeal is remanded to the court of the District Judge, Kanpur, with a direction to readmit it to its original number and then to dispose it of according to law. The learned Judge may either dispose of the appeal himself or transfer it to some competent Civil Judge having jurisdiction for disposal. 9. Let the record of the case be sent back to the court below forthwith.