' This is a revision petition against the order dated 22-7-1975 passed by Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the short ground that the previous order of the. Mukhtiarkar was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal and therefore second appeal could not lie.
2. The Advocate for the petitioner contends that the original petition that was filed in the Board of Revenue, was written in Sindhi by a stamp vendor who could not distiguish between appeal and revision nor could be know the implication thereof. The result obviously was that the Additional Commissioner dismissed the petition on the short ground that the previous order of the Mukhtiarkar was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal and therefore no second appeal lie.
3. I have seen the record. It is correct that the original application was presented before the Board of Revenue, when there was no posts of Commissioner in the province. The application was written in Sindhi and bears thumb impression of the petitioner. Obviously neither the petitioner nor the stamp vendor seen to be aware of the implication as for them there was no distinction between appeal and revision. Moreover The petition was presented before the Board of Revenue which was the final judicial authority in Revenue matters. The Board of Revenue could have heard this petition treating it was revision but since the post of Commissioner has been revived and all such cases have been transferred to the Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner could have accepted this plea treating the application as revision, I accordingly set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner and remand the case to him with a direction that he should treat the petition as revision and decide the case on merits. The Advocate for the other party has no objection.