E V EMPERUMAL Vs. RAJA KALYANA MANDAPAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision petition filed under section 115, Civil Proce-dure Code, against the order made by the Bench of the Court of Small Causes in N. T. A. No. 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 in Suit No. 122 of 1980 rendered by the learned III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras on 27th day of November, 1980 holding that the suit is not maintainable since section 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 section 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Court 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 section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) 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 section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that has been committed by the lower Court in pronouncing the judgment in N. T. A. No. 4 of 1981.

(3.) IT is also relevant in this connection to note that under section 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Court 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 section 115, Civil Procedure Code. IT has been so held by this Court as early as in O. M. Nagoor Meeran Sahib v. Sookulal Sowcar2. 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 section 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Court 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 Causes 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 raperted in Sadasook Gambir Chund v. Kannayya3 and Srinivasa Charlu v. Balaji Rau4. Thus, it is seen that this civil revision petition before this Court under disposal, is one which is entertainable under section 115, Civil Procedure Code.