JUDGMENT
In a recent case, Letters Patent Appeal No. 221 of 1914), we followed the decisions in Haladhar Maiti v. Choytonna Maiti and Ramadhin Bania v. Sewbalak Singh(3) and held that the Court could exercise revisionary jurisdiction over the Presidency Small Cause Court.
We have been shown no reason now for taking a different view. It is argued that in the present case there could be no revision, because respondent-plaintiff had an appeal open to him under section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. But we follow the decisions Sadasook Gambir Chund v. Kannayya and Srinivasa Charlu v. Balaji Rau, and hold that the jurisdiction under Section 38 is not of an appellate nature. In these circumstances we think that the learned Judge had jurisdiction to pass his order.
We have been shown no reason for dissenting from that order, or the learned Judge's exercise of his discretion in passing it.
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.