that by virtue of section 165(2) a Revenue Court shall be treated a Civil Court and there cannot be any other different interpretation to that. However, the learned counsel has interpreted sub-section (2) of Section 165 conveniently that a Revenue Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of enquiries in the Court, therefore, a Collector presiding over the said Court be treated as a Judge. The supplemental inference drawn by the learned counsel is fallacious. A Judge is always a part of the Court, however, still the duties, norms, character, qualities of a Judge are totally different, therefore, an establishment, set up and proceedings and Presiding Officer may form a Court yet that Presiding Officer sometimes cannot have a status of a Judge. Thus, the Judge is that entity who sits in a Court as a part of a Court, however, not necessarily in each case the Presiding officer who is discharging the duties of determining a question or the issue, is a Judge. Similarly, all judgments are decisions, however, all decisions are not necessarily judgments. For this interpretation, one finds help inbuilt. In Section 165(1) the legislature has used the word “revenue officer” and it ended with “shall be a revenue court”. Similarly, in Section 165(2), it has used the word “revenue Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court”. Nowhere in this section pertaining to enquiry, the legislature has used the word “Judge” but has used the word “Court”. The legislature did not intend that revenue officer under the Code shall be deemed to be a Judge. The
