( 1 ) THE plaintiff in OS. 10 of 1966 on the file of the I Addl. II Munsiff, bangalore, has filed this revision petition challenging the judgment dt. 23-9-1972 in the said suit. The respondents were the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,050 under a pronote dt. 28-12-1962 said to have been executed by the defendants in his favour. He averred in the plaint that the defendants borrowed the said sum on executing the pronote and the consideration receipt, agreeing to pay interest thereon, and that the defendants are agriculturists within the meaing of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1928 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, he was entitled to institute the, suit by virtue of S. 24 of the Act claiming the benefit of extended period of limitation. The defendants filed their written statement and contended inter alia that they had not executed the suit pronote, no valid consideration had passed under the pronote and that they were not agriculturists. The following issues were struck : (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are agriculturists within the meaning of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act? (2) Whether the defendants borrowed Rs. 1,050 on the morning of 28-12-1962 and in the evening of the same day, they executed the pronote and consideration receipt? (3) Is the suit barred and unenforceable? (4) Is the suit barred by time? ( 2 ) THE learned Munsiff ordered that issue No. 1 should be tried as a preliminary issue. He recorded evidence on issue No. 1 only. He held on issue no. 1 that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendants were agri- culturists within the meaning of the Act Though the remaining issues had not been yet taken up for trial he furtheir proceeded to record his finding on them and held that the suit was time barred. In the result, he dismissed the suit. This judgment is challenged in this revision petition. ( 3 ) SRI V. Narasimhaiah, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff, urged that fee learned Munsiff has not drawn proper conclusions on the evidence Available and that fact is apparent on the mere reading of the evidence. He contended that the, finding on the question of status ought to have been in favour of the plaintiff. ( 3 ) SRI V. Narasimhaiah, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff, urged that fee learned Munsiff has not drawn proper conclusions on the evidence Available and that fact is apparent on the mere reading of the evidence. He contended that the, finding on the question of status ought to have been in favour of the plaintiff. Sri K. Subba Rao the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-defendants, raised a preliminary objection and contended that dismissal off the suit amounts to a decree and that is an appeasable decree and, therefore, the decree cannot be set aside in this revision petition which is instituted under the provisions of S. 4 of the Act. He further contended that the proper remedy atailaple to the plaintiff was to, file an appeal in the Court of the Civil Judge against that decree, and secure appropriate reliefs. ( 4 ) SRI Narasimhaiah argued that this Court has the necessary power under S. 4 (2) of the Act to pass such orders as it thinks fit when it finds that there is any illegality or impropriety or irregularity committed in the proceedings, arid if this Court finds on evidence that the finding on the status as recorded by the Munsiff is not sustainable and that it should be held that the defendants are agriculturists within the meaning of the Act, then this Court can, while recording that finding, set aside that decree and call upon the Munsiff to dispose of the suit accprding to law. He placed reliance on the decision in Thimma Reddy v, Hanumantha 196l Mya. L. J. 374. and Gidde gowda v. Dyavegowda 1961 Mys. L. J. 642. . Section 4 of the Act reads as follows a reading of the provisions make it abundantly clear that the High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction not by virtue of S. 115 CPC, but by virtue of S. 4 (2) of the Act 3. 4 (2) of the Act makes the finding in regard to status as recorded by the Munsiff Anal and subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court only. The power of the High Court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, is laid down in the letter part of S. 4 (2) of the Act. 4 (2) of the Act makes the finding in regard to status as recorded by the Munsiff Anal and subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court only. The power of the High Court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, is laid down in the letter part of S. 4 (2) of the Act. In my opinion, a plain reading of that part of S. 4 (2) of the act leaves no doubt that the power that is to be exercised by the High court is only for the purpose of satisfying itself about the legality or propriety of the said finding or about the regularity of the proceeding to the extent it pertains to the recording of the finding on the question of status. If the High Court finds any illegality or impropriety committed in regard to the finding on the question of status, it can proceed to pass such orders as it thinks fit. If the High Court finds any irregularity haying been committed in the proceeding as above stated, it can proceed to pass such orders as it thinks fit, with respect thereto. The stress would be on the words ' with respect thereto '. While understanding the meaning of these words, i am of opinion that it cannot be forgotten that the power that is being exercised by the High Court under this provision is for the purpose of satisfying itself about the application of the provisions of the Act. Therefore if it is found that irregularity in the proceedings has been committed while the provisions of the Act, are applied, then the High Court can in exercise of this power, interfere and proceed to pass such orders as it thinks fit to set- right such irregularity. ( 5 ) IN Thimma Reddy's case (1), the plaintiff had brought a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 294-4-0 due under a promissory note. He claimed benefit of the extended period of limitation under S. 24 of the Act, on the ground that the defendant therein was an agriculturist under the Act. The court below recorded a finding that the defendant was not an agriculturist within the provisions of the Act as on the date of the, suit. After recording a finding to that effect it observed that the plaintiff's suit was barred by time. The court below recorded a finding that the defendant was not an agriculturist within the provisions of the Act as on the date of the, suit. After recording a finding to that effect it observed that the plaintiff's suit was barred by time. That, finding in regard to status was brought before this Court in the said revision petition. Somnath Iyer J. pointed out as to what was the proper position in law in regard to recording such findings in regard to status. It was found by this Court that the finding on the preliminary issue was to be set aside and the Court below was to be directed to record a finding on the question whether the defendant was an agriculturist or not in the light, of the observations made. It was further observed as follows : if the Court below has, after it recorded its finding which has now been set aside, dismissed the suit as time barred that dismissal shall stand set aside, and the suit shall be restored by the Court below to its file and disposed of as directed by this order. ( 6 ) IT is this portion that is relied upon by Sri Na. rasimhaiah, It, needs no. saying that while recording this observation, the Court did not consider whether it had power to set aside such a, decree of dismissal of the suit while exercising its jurisdiction under S. 4 (2) of the Act. In the view of this position being available, I am unable to see how this observation can be. regarded as an authority on the question now agitated before me. In Gidde Gowda's cost (2), the plaintiff had filed a suit praying for a declaration of title to the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. He further claimed that he as well as defendants 2 and 3, under whom he claimed his right, were agriculturists within the provisions of the Act, and he as well as defendants 2 and 3 were entitled to the benefits Under the Act. The Court below held that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist while defendants 2 and 3 were agriculturists. After recording this finding it further held ' on the basis of S. 5 of the Act, that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefits under the Act. The Court below held that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist while defendants 2 and 3 were agriculturists. After recording this finding it further held ' on the basis of S. 5 of the Act, that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefits under the Act. That order was challenged in the revision petition filed by defendant, 1. Nittoor Sreenivasa Rau J. held that when the plaintiff was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the act, he was not entitled to the benefits under the Act. Itwas contended that this court had no, jurisdiction under S. 4 (2) o,f the Act to interfere with the finding recorded by the Court below that" the, plaintiff was entitled to the benefits of the Act as its jurisdiction extended to. the extent of interfering with the finding in regard to question of status only. His Lordship, relying on the latter part of S. 4 (2) of the Act, held as fallows : it would not the unjustifiable to say that if the Court below draws wrong conclusions as to the legal result flowing from its findings on the issue of status, it is a matter relating to the regularity of, its proceedings and that, the concluding part of the provision quoted above enables the High Court to pass such order in relation to the regularity of the proceedings as may be thought fit. ( 7 ) IT is plain that the High Court did not interfere with the decree in case a decree had been passed in the above mentioned case. What was held by nittoor Sreenivasa Rau J. was that the High -Court could set right any irregularity found to have been committed in the proceedings relating to the findings on the issue of status and the conclusions flowing therefrom, but in relation to that finding only. I am, therefore, of opinion that this decision also does not support the contention of Sri Narasimhaiah. S. 4 (2) of the Act can never be regarded as empowering this Court, while exercising its revisicnal powers under it to interfere with a decree passed in a suit, though in such a suit application of the provisions of S. 3 o. f the Act is called for. All that it can do under S. 4 (2) of the Act is to deal with the finding on the issue of status under the Act. All that it can do under S. 4 (2) of the Act is to deal with the finding on the issue of status under the Act. The contention that this power can be exercised by the High Court to set aside a decree in a suit, is, to my mind, a far fetched one. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed that the dismissal of the suit in question is an appealable decree, and an appeal lies to the Court of the Civil Judge. It would be open to the plaintiff to file such an appeal and contend before the Civil judge that the decree in question is bad in law. It will have to be, in this view of the matter held that the objection raised by Sri K. Subba rao, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-defendants, is to be accepted. Sri Narasimhaiah urged that for no fault of the plaintiff an objection in regard to limitation would be raised in case the plaintiff chose to prefer an appeal in the Court of the Civil Judge as late as this because the mistake lay in the proceedings held by the trial Court. I find some force in this contention. But it can be remedied by the plaintiff taking recourse to the provisions of S. 14 of the Limitation Act. In view of the foregoing reasons, I bold that this revision petition is not maintainable as an appeal is competent, and a proper relief can be secured by the plaintiff in suth an appeal, and, therefore, reject it. No order as to costs under the circumstances of the case. --- *** --- .