JUDGMENT Piggott, J.
1. The applicant in this case is one Mohammad Yasin, who on the 21st of February 1914 applied for execution of a certain decree in the Court of Small Causes at Meerut, alleging himself to be a transferee of the decree. He produced a sale-deed purporting to be executed by the decree-holder. On inquiry the Court held the genuineness of that, deed to be open to great suspicion and rejected Mohammad Yasin's application. The original decree-holder having died during the pendency of these proceedings, there was some little delay, perhaps not unnatural under the circumstances, before his sons applied to the Judge of the Court of Small Causes for sanction to prosecute Mohammad Yasin in respect of offences punishable under Sections 193, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by him in the course of this transaction. The application came before the successor of the learned Judge who had tried the matter on the civil side, and sanction was refused by an order dated the 15th August 1914. On the 28th of October 1914, the applicants for sanction brought the matter before the District Judge of Meerut under Section 195, Clause (6), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that in this Court a somewhat curious practice prevails of registering applications to the District Judge under this particular provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure as "criminal appeals." One result of this practice was that the learned District Judge felt considerable doubt as to whether the " application before him was not barred by Article 154 of the first Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908). He decided, however, to overrule the objection as to limitation and for the reasons given in his order, dated the 17th of November 1914, he granted the sanction applied for.
2. The matter was brought before this Court by present application presented on the 13th April 1915, and a further result of the system of registering such applications as criminal appeals in the Court of the District Judge of Meerut has been that the application now before me has been admitted and notice issued to the opposite side, as an application in criminal revision. On the reported authorities and settled practice of this Court, there can be no doubt whatever that this ought not to have been done. Although in the Court below the application to the District Judge was registered as a criminal appeal, it was an application to the District Judge. It was an application in a matter in which the Sessions Judge could have no possible jurisdiction, I do not think the parties concerned were under any misapprehension as to the matter being before the District Judge of Meerut and not before the Sessions Judge. For authorities in this Court I am content to refer to a decision of the Full Bench in Salig Bam v. Bamji Lal 28 A. 554; A.W.N. (1906) 103 : 3 A.L.J. 394 (F.B.) : 1 M.L.T. 219 : 3 Cr. L.J. 400. It is an arguable point, on the wording of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a point as to which there has been difference of opinion between the various High Courts, whether under the circumstances stated Mohammad Yasin is not entitled to bring the matter before this Court by a further application under Section 195, Clause (6), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This point has, however, been settled in the negative so far as this Court is concerned ever since the decision in Kanhai Lal v. Ghhadammi Lal 1 Ind. Cas. 5 : 31 A. 48 : A.W.N. (1903) 290 : 6 A.L.J. 1 : 9 Or. L.J. 63 : 5 M.L.T. 55. The only revisional jurisdiction, therefore, which I can be asked to exercise in the matter is that limited by-section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am content to say that I find no valid cause for interference under that section.
3. The application is dismissed.