ORDER Hari Swarup, J. - This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Distt. Judge u/s 115 Code of Civil Procedure. A suit had been instituted in the court of the Munsif. It was decreed. Appeal against the decree was preferred in the court of the Distt. Judge who subsequently transferred it to the court of the Civil Judge u/s 22 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. While the appeal was pending before the Civil Judge, Defendant made an application for amendment of the written statement. This application was dismissed by the Civil Judge mainly on tie ground that it was belated and that it would change the nature of the case. Against this order a revision was preferred by the Defendant before the Distt. Judge. The Distt. Judge held that the Civil Judge committed an error of jurisdiction in not allowing the amendment of the written statement. According to him, the amendment was essential for avoiding multiplicity of litigation and for complete and final adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Distt. Judge lacked inherent jurisdiction to dispose of the revision as no revision was maintainable against the order passed by the Civil Judge in appeal transferred by the Distt. Judge. The contention is that the Civil Judge was exercise the powers of the Distt. Judge himself and hence the Distt. Judge could not exercise the re visional powers in this case. The fallacy in the argument of the learned Counsel is in his thinking that the Civil Judge is not an independent appellate court but exercised the powers of the Distt. Judge Section 21 of the above Aft provides for an appeal both to the Distt. Judge and the Civil Judge, if so notified Under Sub-section (4) of Section 21. Sub-section (4) runs as under: The High Court may with the previous sanction of the State Govt. direct, by notification in the official Gazette, that appeals laying to the District Judge Under Sub-section (2) from all or of the decree's or Orders of any Munsif shall be preferred to the court a such Civil Judge as maybe mentioned in the notification and the appeals shall thereupon be preferred accordingly. 3. direct, by notification in the official Gazette, that appeals laying to the District Judge Under Sub-section (2) from all or of the decree's or Orders of any Munsif shall be preferred to the court a such Civil Judge as maybe mentioned in the notification and the appeals shall thereupon be preferred accordingly. 3. The purport of this provision is that the court of the Civil Judge becomes a coordinate appellate court along with the court of the Distt. Judge. Section 22 of the Act provides for the transfer of appeals to Civil Judges by a Distt. Judge which may be pending before him against the decrees or orders of Miunsif. When the Distt. Judge transfers the appeal u/s 22 he really sends it to the appellate court formed u/s 21(4) of the Act. The power of transfer is exercised by virtue of the Civil Judge being himself the appellate court. Hence, when any order is passed by the Civil Judge in an appeal transferred to him By the Distt. Judge, the Civil Judge does it as an independent appellate court and hot as a delegatee of the Distt. Judge exercising the powers of the Distt. Judge. 4. Section 115 CPC on the relevant date read as under: The High Court or District Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any courts subordinate to such High Court and District Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and...the High Court or District Court may make such order as it thinks fit. According to Section 3 CPC every Civil court of a grade inferior to that of a Distt. Court is subordinate to the High Court and District Court. Hence the court of the Civil Judge will be subordinate to the Distt. Judge and he will have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against any order made by the Civil Judge. 5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the court of Civil Judge exercised appellate jurisdiction and the revisional power was itself an appellate power and as the Distt. Judge was not the appellate court for the appellate decree to be passed by the Civil Judge, he could not exercise the revisional powers. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1 . Judge was not the appellate court for the appellate decree to be passed by the Civil Judge, he could not exercise the revisional powers. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1 . In that case the Supreme Court had held that the revisional power was in essence the appellate power. It may be that the revisional power was the appellate power, but it is open to the Legislature to confer the appellate power to a limited extant on the Distt. Judge even though the appeal against the decree may not be to him. Section 115 in effect confers on the Distt. Judge the limited appellate power in the form of revisional power to be exercised in respect; of oases decided by the Court subordinate to him. It is not necessary that the revisional powers u/s 115 CPC must be exercised only by that court in which appeal, lies. When the section uses the words "in which no appeal lie, thereto" it means that the High Court or district court may exercise the revisional powers even in oases where appeals may lie to other courts. The only condition is that the appeal against the impugned order should not lie to that particular court. The Distt. Judge must, therefore, be held to have had jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the, revision against the order of the Civil Judge. The same view was taken by Asthana, J. in the case Marwari Sabha v. Kanhaiya Lal 1973 AWR 100 . 6. Revision accordingly fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs.