(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order made by the Second Class Magistrate, Khanapur, under Section 86 of the Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. III of 1901). The petitioner, the Vita Municipality, issued a notice of demand against the opponent in respect of a Municipal claim for house-tax and water-tax under Section 82 of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The opponent appealed to the Second Class Magistrate, Khanapur, against the notice of demand under Section 86 and the learned Magistrate reduced the tax from Rs. 12 to Rs.10. Against that order the Municipality has applied in revision.
(2.) A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Kane for the opponent that no revision application lies. His contention is that under Section 86 of the Act the Magistrate to whom the appeal was made was a persona designata, and against his decision no appeal or revision application would lie to this Court. The section provides that appeals against any notice of demand issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 82 may be made to any Magistrate or Bench of Magistrates by whom under the directions of the Provincial Government, or of the District Magistrate, such class of cases is to be tried. The section lays down certain conditions which must be satisfied before such an appeal can be heard and determined, but we are not concerned here with those conditions. It has been held in In re Dalsukh Ram (1907) 9 Bom. L.R. 1347, that under Section 86 of the Bombay: District Municipal Act, 1901, a Magistrate hearing an appeal of the kind mentioned in the section is merely an appellate authority having jurisdiction given by the Act to deal with the question of a civil liability and he is therefore not an inferior criminal Court, to which alone the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies. The case did not deal with the question whether a revision application against a Magistrate's order would lie to the High Court on the civil side.