THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.753 OF 2010 DATED: 15-02-2011. Between Mohd. Akhil Ahmed … Appellant And Mohammed Naseeruddin …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.753 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 29-07-2010, in I.A.No.191 of 2010 in A.S.No.264 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to review the judgment passed in A.S.No.264 of 2008, dated 09-10-2009 was allowed. 2. On the point of jurisdiction, the trial Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The landlord carried the matter in appeal. Accepting the contention of the appellant that the age of the building is less than 15 years, the appellate Court held that Civil Court has jurisdiction, but under the impression that the admitted rent payable in respect of the premises is less than Rs.3,500/- per month, dismissed the appeal. As a matter of fact, when the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the age of the building is less than 15 years and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the case, the appellate Court ought to have allowed the appeal. But instead of allowing the appeal, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal. For that purpose, the landlord filed review application. Considering the error apparent on the face of the record, the appellate Court reviewed the judgment and consequently allowed the appeal. However, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for deciding issue Nos. 2 to 5 in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as the scope of review is very limited so as to correct the error apparent on the face of the record, the question of review does not arise, but the said contention appears to be untenable. Once the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the appeal has to be allowed holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction, necessarily the matter has to be remanded to the trial Court for the purpose of deciding the other issues. Therefore, the appellate Court rightly allowed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:15-02-2011 Hsd