Swamikkannu, J.@mdashThis is a civil revision petition filed under S. 115, C.P.C., against the order made by the Bench of the Court of Small
Causes in N.T.A. 4 of 1981. The learned III Judge and the IV Judge, Court of Small Causes constituted the Bench. The New Trial application
No. 4 of 1981, was filed against the judgment and decree to Suit No. 122 of 1980, rendered by the learned III Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Madras, on 27th November, 1979, holding that the suit is not maintainable since S. 69(2) of the Partnership Act had not been satisfied and also
holding that the accountant-defendant is not liable to pay the value of the alleged shortage of 69 tumblers and six cups. The said New trial
Application had been preferred under S. 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act (Act XV of 1882), wherein the Bench of the Small
Causes Court allowed the application. It is against that order pronounced by the Bench in the new trial application, the defendant has come
forward with this revision petition under S. 115, C.P.C. The point for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether there is any error of
jurisdiction or any other error as contemplated under the provisions of S. 115, C.P.C., has been committed by the lower court in pronouncing the
judgment in N.T.A. 4 of 1981.
2. Even before actually dealing with the merits of this civil revision petition, it is better to note the provisions under which the revision lies as against
the order pronounced by the Bench of the Court of Small Causes in N.T.A. 4 of 1981. The New Trial contested cases are actually entertained by
the Presidency Small Cause Court under the provisions of S. 38 of the Act XV of 1882. It reads as follows:�
New trial of contested cases:�Where a suit has been contested, the Small Cause Court may, on the application of either party, made within
eighty days from the date of the decree or order in the suit (not being a decree passed under S. 522 of the C.P.C. ) order a new trial to be held, or
alter, set aside or reverse the decree or order, upon such terms as it thinks reasonable, and may, in the meantime, stay the proceedings.
Explanation : Every suit shall be deemed to be contested in which the decree is made otherwise than by consent of or in default of appearance by
the defendant.
As against the order in the new trial application entertained by the Bench of the Court of Small Causes in the Presidency Town a revision only is
available to the aggrieved party. S. 39 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act (Act XV of 1882) reads as follows�
Removal of certain causes into High Court�(1) In any suit instituted in a Small Cause Court in which the amount or value of the subject-matter
exceeds the sum of one thousand rupees, the defendant or any one of the defendants may, before the day fixed by the summons for the
appearance of the defendant or within eight days after the service of summons on him, whichever period shall last expire, apply ex parte on an
affidavit setting forth the facts on which he relies for his defence to a Judge of the High Court for an order removing the cause into the High Court.
(2) Unless the Judge is of the opinion that the application has been made solely for the purpose of delay, the applicant shall be entitled to such
order as of right ;
Provided that, the removal directed by such order shall, unless the Judge otherwise directs, be conditional upon the applicant giving security, to the
approval of the Judge, within a reasonable time to be prescribed in the order for the payment of the amount claimed and of the costs which may
become payable by him to the plaintiff in respect of the said suit.
(3) If the applicant fail or neglect to complete the required security (if any) within the prescribed time (if any) the said order shall be discharged and
the suit shall proceed in the Small Cause Court as if such order had never been made.
(4) If the plaintiff in any case which has been removed u/s into the High Court had abandoned a portion of this claim in order to be able to bring the
suit within the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court, he shall be permitted to revive the portion of his claim so abandoned.
It is under the CPC where there is a provision under S. 115, C.P.C., that a revision petition can be filed if there is no specific provision available in
any enactment conferring appeal remedy for the aggrieved party. In the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act (XV of 1882) there is no provision
for appeal or revision as against the order pronounced by the Bench of the Court of Small Causes, exercising its power under S. 38 of the Act by
the aggrieved party. Further the nature of the new trial application itself is not in the nature of the appeal, but it is only a revision. It has been so held
in many decisions of this Court as well as in Madras Cine Service v. Shyamale Pictures (P) Ltd. 81 L.W. 174=1968-2-M.L.J. 205. Therefore,
when a Bench of the Court of Small Causes itself is entertaining an application against the judgment of one of its courts and exercising only its
jurisdiction, which is more or less of the nature of revisional powers, it is needless to say that further proceedings that can be entertained by the
High Court under S. 115, C.P.C., can only be on a question of any error or infirmity that is contemplated I by the said section of the procedural
law of the land.
3. It is also relevant in this connection to note that under S. 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act (XV of 1882), no appeal power is
conferred on the Bench of the said court entertaining applications under the said provision and as such a person against whom an order is passed
by the said Bench and who is aggrieved in pursuance thereof, may apply to the High Court for revision under S. 115, C.P.C. It has been so held
by this Court as early as in O.M. Nagoor Meeru Sahib v. Sookulal Sowcar (1915)-2 L.W. 719. In the said decision it has been clearly held that
the High Court can exercise a revisional jurisdiction over the Presidency Small Causes Court. Thus we find that the jurisdiction under S. 38 of the
Presidency Small Causes Courts Act is not of appeal nature and a person against whom an order is made is not bound to apply to the Full Bench
of the Presidency Small Cause Court for new trial before invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. For arriving at the above decision,
this Court had followed the decisions reported in Sadasook Gambir Cnund v. Kannaya 19 Mad. 96, and Srinivasa Charlu v. Balaji Rau 21 Mad.
232. Thus, it is seen that this civil revision petition before this Court under disposal, is one which is entertainable under S. 115, C.P.C.
4. In this regard, it is also better to be enlightened ourselves with the analagous provisions available in the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (IX
of 1887). It is under S. 25 of the said enactment, the revision of the decree or orders of the court of Small Causes are dealt with. It is provided
under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (IX of 1887), that the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order
made in any case, decided by a court of Small Causes, was according to law may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it
thinks fit. Thus it is only under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (IX of 1887) that a revision lies as against the order of the Court of
Small Causes which court''s jurisdiction is dealt with under S. 15 of the said enactment which reads as follows�
Cognizance of suits by courts of Small Causes:�(1) A Court or Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the second
schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a court of Small Causes
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of civil nature of
which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a court of small causes.
(3) Subject as aforesaid, the State Government may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed
one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the order.
Bearing in mind the above provisions of law of the two enactments it is seen that when a person is aggrieved in so far as the Presidency Small
Causes Courts Act is concerned, the highest forum of the State which he has to approach is through the provisions of the procedural law of the
land, namely, S. 115 of the C.P.C., and the other who is aggrieved by an order of the court which is described as Provincial Small Causes Courts
as per the provisions of Act IX of 1887 has to get his redressal of his grievance under the provisions of S. 25 of the Act IX of 1887. This
distinction has to be borne in mind in order to appreciate the points that may be arising under both the enactments, because so far as the
Presidency Small Causes Courts Act is concerned, the aggrieved party is heard in its revisional powers under S. 38 by a Bench consisting of two
Judges of the very same Court and thereafter once again the aggrieved party is allowed to come by way of revision to this Court under the said
enactment whereas it is not so under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (IX of 1887). As a matter of fact, the above principles have
been laid down by the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar Vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, . The Said decision has to be implicitly followed by this
Court in its proceedings while dealing with the revision arising under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (IX of 1887).
Bearing the above principles in mind, when the impugned order is scrutinised, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the revision
petition. None of the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner can be upheld. A perusal of the revisional order in N.T.A. 4 of 1981,
would disclose that all the formalities had been upheld as a court exercising jurisdiction under S. 38 of the Presidency Towns Small Cause Courts
Act (XV of 1882) by the lower court and there is no infirmity that could be found as contemplated under the provisions of S. 115, C.P.C. There is
no merit in the civil revision petition, and hence it is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, in the circumstances without costs. Three
months time is ranted to the revision petitioner as prayed for payment from today.
