Judgment 1. This application arises out of a suit that was instituted by respondent 4 in the year 1969 before the Sub-divisional Officer, Dumka, under S.14 of the Santhal Parganas Justice Regulation 1893, for declaration of her title and recovery of possession over an area of 6.32 acres of land pertaining to Jamabandi No. 49, mouza Khirodhana in Dumka Sub-division. Respondent 4 claimed title and possession over the plot on the ground that it was recorded in favour of her mother Biro Panditain. The defendant in the said suit was no other person than the father of respondent 4 but had taken another wife. It may be stated that respondent 4 died during the pendency of this application and her heirs have been substituted by order dt. 28th February, 1984, passed by this Court. The petitioners of this application are the heirs of the original defendant who had died during the pendency of the appeal preferred by respondent 4 against the decision of the trial court dismissing the suit and were substituted at that stage. 2. The suit instituted by respondent 4 before the Sub-divisional Officer, Dumka was transferred for disposal to the Deputy Collector in charge of Court No. 1 (respondent 3). The trial Court, on a consideration of the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the suit. Respondent 4, being aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit, preferred an appeal before the Sub-divisional Officer, Dumka, but she lost her claim there also. Thereafter she filed a revision before the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division (respondent 1) who, by his order dt. 21st June, 1978, as contained in annexure 3 allowed the application in revision and set aside the orders of the courts below vide annexures 1 and 2, hereof, thereby decreeing the claim of respondent 4. 3. Mr. S. R. Ghosal, appearing in support of this application, submits that no revision was maintainable under the provisions of S.19 of the Regulation. 21st June, 1978, as contained in annexure 3 allowed the application in revision and set aside the orders of the courts below vide annexures 1 and 2, hereof, thereby decreeing the claim of respondent 4. 3. Mr. S. R. Ghosal, appearing in support of this application, submits that no revision was maintainable under the provisions of S.19 of the Regulation. In order to appreciate the submission it would be better, to quote sub-sec.(1) of S.19 which reads as follows :- "The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion or otherwise, call for the record of any case decided by a Court under his control in which an appeal does not lie or in which, for cause shown to his satisfaction, an appeal has not been preferred within the time limited therefor, and may pass such order in the case as he thinks fit." It is, thus, apparent that revision will be maintainable only in two cases, namely, (i) where an appeal does not lie, or (ii) where an appeal lies but it was not preferred. On the facts stated above it is clear that the order of the first Court, namely, respondent 3, was not only appealable but an appeal was in fact filed before the Sub-divisional Officer, respondent 2. According to Mr. Ghosal, therefore, the condition for maintaining an application in revision was not available to respondent 4. 4. Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad, appearing for the contesting respondents, who are the heirs of respondent 4, however, has submitted that the expression appeal in S.19 must refer to a second appeal. For the appreciation of his argument it will be necessary to refer to some of the other provisions of the Regulation. S.17 provides for filing appeals from original decree or orders. According to this provision no appeal lies against a decree or order made in an original suit of value not exceeding fifty rupees by a Sub-divisional Officer, or against a decree or order in a suit where the value is not exceeding one hundred rupees passed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner, if no question of title to immovable property or to office connected with such property is directly or indirectly in issue. The orders or decrees passed of the valuation lower to the valuations mentioned above by the authorities concerned, subject to the provisions with respect to revision, have been made final. The orders or decrees passed of the valuation lower to the valuations mentioned above by the authorities concerned, subject to the provisions with respect to revision, have been made final. Similarly, a provision for second appeal has been made in S.18. According to the scheme of this section, an appellate order or decree has been made final in all cases where the decision of the lower court is affirmed, subject, however, to the provisions of .......... revision. 5. It was contended by Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad that the finality attached to an appellate order is subject to the right of revision by the aggrieved party and, inasmuch as no second appeal could be filed by respondent 4 as the appellate order was one of affirmance, respondent 4 had an apparent right of revision. This submission of Mr. Prasad, in our opinion, is well-founded and has got to be accepted. S.19 speaks of a right of revision where an appeal does not lie. We have seen that under S.17 certain classes of decrees and orders are not appealable. But the Regulation, while shutting out the right of appeal, provides a remedy of revision. Similarly, a second appeal has been provided only in the case of a judgment or order of reversal of the trial courts decree or order and not against a judgment or order of affirmance. S.18, in unambiguous language, has made the judgment or order of a second appellate court final but subject to the provisions with respect to revision. If the contention of Mr. Ghosal is accepted, then it will lead to an anomalous position and, following the doctrine of harmonious construction, we are inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Prasad that the Regulation has provided two remedies to each category of the suitor, i.e., a person who can avail the remedies of two appeals then his remedy of revision is barred, and where he cannot file a second appeal, the judgment or order of the first appellate Court being in affirmance with that of the trial Court, he can avail the other remedy of revision. Remedy of revision has been denied to a suitor because of concurrent findings of two courts of facts. 6. Remedy of revision has been denied to a suitor because of concurrent findings of two courts of facts. 6. From the above discussions, we have no doubt in our mind in coming to the conclusion that the expression "where an appeal does not lie", occurring in S.19, means an appeal not lying under S.18. To make the matter more clear, it is held that a revision under S.19 will lie in the following cases :- (i) Where the decree or order of the original Court has been made final under S.17 itself; (ii) Where a second appeal does not lie on account of the bar created by S.18 on account of the fact that the decision of the first appellate court is in agreement with the decision of the trial court. Taking any other view would result in an anomalous position. The application, therefore, has got no merit and it must fail. It is dismissed accordingly, but without costs.