(1.) A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this application, namely, that no revision lies. The suit was instituted in the Court of a Judge of Small Cause and was undoubtedly a suit of Small Causes Court nature. The suit was, however, transferred by an order of a superior Court under Section 24, Civil P. C, to the Court of the Munsif who had no Small Cause Court power up to the valuation of the claim. It was finally disposed of by him. The contention before us is that an appeal ought to have been preferred to the District Judge from the decree and, inasmuch as no appeal was preferred, no revision should be entertained. In our opinion when the case was transferred from the Court of Small Causes to that of the Munsif the latter Court must under Section 24, Sub-clause (4), Civil P. C, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. The proceedings in this Court therefore must be governed by the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This view was accepted in the case of Sukha V/s. Raghunath Das [1917] 39 All. 214 with which we agree. It is therefore clear that no appeal lay to the District Judge and consequently there is no bar to this revision.
(2.) Coming to the merits of the case, it appears that the promissory note in question was executed when the defendant's brother was being prosecuted in a criminal case for misappropriation of certain amount. It cannot, however, be disputed that some money was undoubtedly due from the defendant's brother. In order to put a stop to further trouble the defendant agreed to execute the promissory note for Rs. 482 and Rs. 200 were paid in cash. The judgment does not clearly show in what way the criminal proceedings dropped, but it is not disputed that somehow or other they terminated in favour of the accused.
(3.) The materials before us are not sufficient to justify a finding that the promissory note was executed with a view to stifling the prosecution. The finding of the Court below that no undue influence was exercised is also one of fact and cannot be questioned.