Honble ARORA, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated May 12, 1992, passed by the Civil Judge, Sojat, by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the petitioners application by which an objection was raised regarding the competency of the Court to hear the appeal. 2. Plaintiff Sohan Lalfiled a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Sojat, against M/s. Kalu Ram Om Prakash, for eviction and arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, Sohan Laldied and, therefore, his legal representatives Smt. Sohini Devi and others were taken on record. The suit, filed by the plaintiff, was decreed by the learned Munsif. The defendant, aggrieved with the dercee and judgment dated October 28, 1989, passed by the learned Munsif, decreeing the suit, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Pali, on December 12, 1989. Summons of this appeal were issued to the Plaintiff-respondent. The learned District Judge, by its order dated September 17/24, 1990, transferred the appeal for disposal to the Court of the Civil Judge, Sojat. The order dated September 17/24,1990, passed by the learned District Judge, Pali, transferring the appeal to the Court of the Civil Judge, Sojat, was not challenged by the appellant before the High Court, but on January 16, 1992, when the appeal came-up for hearing, an application was moved by the appellant that the Court of Civil Judge, Sojat, is not competent to hear the appeal and the order passed by the learned District Judge, transferring the appeal for disposal to the Court of the Civil Judge, Sojat, is wholly without jurisdiction. The learned Civil Judge by its order dated May 12, 1992, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and held that the Court is competent to hear the appeal. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 3. The learned Civil Judge by its order dated May 12, 1992, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and held that the Court is competent to hear the appeal. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 21 (4) of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, the Civil Judge can hear the appeal if he is authorised by the High Court, with the previous sanction of the State Government, by a Notification issued in the official gazette and as no Notification, as required under Section 21 (4) of the Ordinance, has been issued in the present case, therefore, the Civil Judge is not competent to hear the appeal and the appeal can be heard only by the learned District Judge. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Section 21 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, deals with the forum where the appeals from the orders passed by the Civil Judge and Munsifs should be preferred. According to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Ordinance, an appeal from a decree or order of Civil Judge lies to the (a) District Judge where the value of the original suit or in any proceeding arising out of which the decree-order was made, did not exceed Rs. 10,000/- and, (b) to the High Court in any other case. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides that the appeal from the decree of the Munsif shall lie to the Court of the District Judge. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 provides that where the function ofreceiving the appeal, which lies to the District Judge under Subsection (1) or (2) of Section 21, has been assigned to an Additional Judge, the appeal may be preferred to the Additional Judge and Sub-Section (4) provides that the High Court, with the previous sanction of the State Government, can direct by Notification in the official gazette that the appeals against the orders and decrees of the Munsif can be preferred to the Court of Civil Judge. The words "function of receiving any appeals" and "may be preferred to the Additional Judge;" used in Sub-section (3) of Section 21 and "appeals lying to the District Judgeand "shall be preferred to the Court of such Civil Judge" used in Sub-section (3) show the intention of the framers in enacting Section 21 of the Act. Sub-Section (3) authorises the Additional Judge to directly entertain the appeals if the work of directly entertaining the appeals has been assigned to it and in such cases the appeal can be preferred to the Additional Judge. Similarly where the Civil Judge, who has been authorised by the High Court with the previous sanction of the State Government by Notification in the official gazette then in that circumstance the appeals lying to the District Judge under Sub-section (2) of Section 21 against the decrees or orders of the Munsif can be presented or preferred before such Civil Judge. Section 21 of the Ordinance, thus, deals with the assignment of the powers to the Court of the Civil Judge to directly entertain the appeal and has no concern with the appeals which have been presented before the District Judge and have been transferreds for disposal to it, that is the field which has been covered by Section 22 of the Act. It deals only with the forum where the appeal can be presented and as such when the power of receiving and entertaining the appeals by the Civil Judge is required then a Notification is necessary to be issued. If the High Court thinks necessary that a particular Civil Judge may be assigned with the power to receive the appeal, then Notification under Sub-section (4) is necessary. Section 22 of the Civil Courts Ordinance deals with the powers of the District Judge to transfer the appeals to the Civil Judge against the decree and judgment passed by the Munsifs. Sub-section (1) of Section 22 provides that the District Judge may transfer to any Civil Judge, under his administrative control, any appeal pending before him from the decree and order of the Munsif. Sub-section (3) of Section 22 provides that the appeal transferred under this Section shall be disposed of subject to the rules applicable in this regard, by the Civil Judge. Sub-section (3) of Section 22 provides that the appeal transferred under this Section shall be disposed of subject to the rules applicable in this regard, by the Civil Judge. Thus, Section 22 of the Ordinance gives powers to the District Judge to transfer the appeals against the decree and orders passed by the Munsif to any Civil Judge under his control and Sub-section (3) authorises the Civil Judge to dispose of these appeals so transferred to him by the District Judge as it is disposed of by the District Judge. The appeal in the present case was preferred by the appellant before the District Judge and the District Judge transferred the same for disposal to the Civil Judge and as such the Civil Judge is competent under Section 22(3) of the Civil Courts Ordinance to decide and dispose of the appeal. 5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is only the Court competent to decide the appeal which can hear the appeal and in the absence of any Notification issued by the High Court under Section 21 (4) of the Ordinance, learned Civil Judge is not competent to hear and dispose of the appeal. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment of the Supreme Court in: Lakshmi Narain vs. the Additional District Judge, Allahabad (1). The case of the Honble Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner deals with pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. In that case, under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Codes, the District Judge was competent only to hear the appeals of the valuation upto Rs. 5000/- and in the case the valuation of the appeal was more than Rs. 5000/-. The case of the Lakshmi Narain vs. the Additional District, Judge, Allahabad (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, is of no avail. It could have been of some assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner if the present case would have been a case falling under Sub-section (l) of Section 21 of the Ordinance It is only in Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Ordinance where the question of pecuniary jurisdiction regarding the entertainment of the appeal has been involved, which is peri materia to the provisions of Bengal. Agra and Assam Civil Codes, which were under consideration before the Honble Supreme Court. In the present case so far as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the learned District Judge to entertain the appeal u/s 21 (1) has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how the learned Civil Judge is not competent to hear and dispose of the appeal. The only grievance that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, is that no Notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Ordinance has been issued by the High Court with the previous Sanction of the State Government authorising the Civil Judge to dispose of the appeal. No such Notification is required to be issued authorising the Civil Judge to hear and dispose of the appeals. Section 21 (4) of the Ordinance deals with the forum where the appeal should be presented/preferred and has no relevance so far as the competency of the Court to hear and dispose of the appeal, is concerned. Section 22 of the Ordinance gives power to the District Judge to transfer the appeals against the decree and judgments passed by the Munsif to the Court of the Civil Judge and Sub-section (3) of Section 22 gives powers to the Civil Judge to hear and dispose of the appeals transferred to it by the learned District Judge as if he is functining as the District Judge. In view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Ordinance, the learned Civil Judge is competent to hear the appeals. As the powers have been given to the learned Civil Judge under Section 22 (3) of the Ordinance to hear and dispose of the appeals, transferred to it by the learned District Judge under Section 22 (1) of the Ordinance, therefore, he is competent to hear and decide the appeal. The judgment of the Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is, therefore, not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is clearly distinguishable. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.