RAMA JOIS, J. ,, J. ( 1 ) 1. This writ appeal is presented against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition presented by the appellants, on the ground that a revision petition under Section 115 of the cpc lies to this Court against the order made by the District Court Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows : The first appellant is a Nursing home and according to the appellants it is a charitable institution. The appellants were aggrieved by the levy of property tax to the buildings belonging to the first appellant. The building is situated within the city of Bangalore and is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka municipal Corporations Act 1976 (for short the Act ). Section 110 of the act, grants general exemption from the property tax. Clause (c) thereof exempts the charitable hospitals, and dispensaries from payment of property tax. As property tax were levied on the hospital building belonging to the first-appellant an appeal was preferred before the taxation Appellate Committee of the corporation which is the Appellate Authority under Rule 18 of the Taxation Rules incorporated in Schedule III to the Act. The appeal was dismissed. According to the appellants, a person who was the administrator, exercising the power of the appellate authority heard the matter and his successor disposed of the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants preferred an appeal before the District court Bangalore under Rule 20 of the taxation Rules. Rules 20 and 21 thereof reads :"20. An appeal shall lie to the District Court having jurisdiction against any decision of the Taxation Appeals committee constituted under Rule 18 or any order of the Divisional Commissioner under rule 19 but no such appeal shall be heard by the said Court, unless the petition of appeal has been presented within thirty days from the date of such decision or order, as the case may be, and the tax has been paid within the said period. Explanation :-Omitted as unnecessary. (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx 21. The Court may direct who shall bear the costs of an appeal under the above rule. "from the above provision, it is clear that the District Court having jurisdiction over the area, is constituted as an appellate authority over the decision of the taxation appeals, committee. Explanation :-Omitted as unnecessary. (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx 21. The Court may direct who shall bear the costs of an appeal under the above rule. "from the above provision, it is clear that the District Court having jurisdiction over the area, is constituted as an appellate authority over the decision of the taxation appeals, committee. Therefore, the appellants had the right of appeal against the decision of the Administrator, who exercised the power of the Taxation appeals Committee constituted under rule 18 of the Rules to the District court. Before the District Court when the matter was taken up, it appears the appellants were not present and consequently the appeal was dismissed for default. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER an application was made by the appellants before the District court for referring the questions of law arising for consideration in the appeal, to this Court. This application was ma; e under Rule 22 of the Taxation Rules. Rules 22 and 23 which are relevant to this case read : -"22. The District Court having jurisdiction may, if it things fit, state a case on any appeal for the decision of the high Court and shall do whenever a question of law is involved, if either the Commissioner or the appellant applies in writing in that behalf within fifteen days from the decision of the district Court and deposits such sum as the District Court thinks necessary to defray the cost of the reference. "23. (a) The High Court may pass such order as it thinks fit on a reference under rule 22. (b) Upon production of a copy of the order passed under clause (a) the district Court shall proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with the terms of the order, and may direct who shall bear the costs of the appeals and reference" the application made by the appellants before the District Court was dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground that no application seeking reference was maintainable as the appeal of the appellants was not pending. He took the view that the condition precedent for seeking reference under Rule 22 of the rules was the pendency of an appeal before him. He took the view that the condition precedent for seeking reference under Rule 22 of the rules was the pendency of an appeal before him. Thereafter the appellants presented the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the District Court directing it to refer the matter for the decision of this Court. ( 4 ) THE contention of the appellants before the learned Judge, as well as before us, has been that when the appeal presented by the appellants under Rule 20 was dismissed for default, all the questions of law set out in the memorandum of appeal must be deemed to have been answered against the appellant and therefore when an application was made under Rule 22 of the Rules, the District court was bound to make a reference and that as he failed to discharge a statutory duty, a writ of mandamus had to be issued to the District Court to make a reference. The learned Judge dismissed the petition holding that the appellant had the remedy of revision under Section 115 of the C. P. C. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged the following two points : 1) That the learned Single Judge erred in holding that a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC lies against the order of the District Court dismissing the appeal of the appellants for default. 2) That as under Rule 22, the District Court was bound to make a reference and he failed in his statutory duty, a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of mandamus was the only course open to the appellants. ( 6 ) AS far as the first contention is concerned, in our opinion, the matter is well settled. When an appeal or revision lies to a Court which is subordinate to the high Court, under any provision of law, a revision under Section 115 of the CPC lies to this Court (See Shyamaraju Hegde v. Venkatesha Bhat. 1987 (2) Kar. L. J. 308: ILR 1987 KAR 3244 ). Therefore, we respectfully agree with the view taken by the learned Judge that as the revision petition was maintainable writ petition cannot be entertained. ( 7 ) AS far as the 2nd contention is concerned, it is necessary to ascertain the correct meaning of Rule 22 of the rules. 1987 (2) Kar. L. J. 308: ILR 1987 KAR 3244 ). Therefore, we respectfully agree with the view taken by the learned Judge that as the revision petition was maintainable writ petition cannot be entertained. ( 7 ) AS far as the 2nd contention is concerned, it is necessary to ascertain the correct meaning of Rule 22 of the rules. The learned District Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellants seeking a reference to this Court on the ground that as the appeal of the appellants was not pending but had already been dismissed for default, Rule 22 did not enable the District Court to make any reference to this Court. A careful analysis of Rule 22 of the Rules shows that it expressly provides that an application by a party seeking reference on question of law to this Court has to be made within 15 days from the date of the decision of the District Court. This clearly means that the application either by the Commissioner or the assessee can be made only after the decision is rendered by the District Court. To this extent the view taken by the learned Judge is not correct. But from that, it does not follow that the contention urged for the appellants is sound. In the present case admittedly the appeal presented by the appellants under Rule 20 of the Taxation rules, had been dismissed for default. No question of law had been decided by the District Court in its order, therefore the question of the appellant seeking a reference to this Court on any question of law arising from the decision of the district Court did not arise. The question of law would arise from the decision rendered by the District Court if only the district Court disposed of the appeal on merits and in doing so decided any question of law against the appellant. Rule 23 also clearly indicates this position. The question of law would arise from the decision rendered by the District Court if only the district Court disposed of the appeal on merits and in doing so decided any question of law against the appellant. Rule 23 also clearly indicates this position. As can be seen from clause (b) of Rule 23 when a reference is made under Rule 22 to this Court, and this Court answers the question, the District Court is required to proceed further and dispose of the case in conformity with the terms of the order of this Court which means, that even though the District Court had rendered the decision, it should not be treated as final and it would be subject to the expression of opinion by this Court on any question of law referred at the instance of the parties. According to rule 23 after this Court expresses an opinion on any question of law referred to it a further order has to be passed by the District Court so as to bring its earlier decision in conformity with the opinion expressed by this Court and in such a case the order so passed would be final. Thus the provision is similar to the provisions contained in Section 256 of the Income tax Act. ( 8 ) AS far as the order dismissing the appeal of the appellants for default is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that they have already preferred Civil Revision Petition. Therefore, the appellants are at liberty to prosecute the said revision petition. The appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .