1. This is an application in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff sued the defendant upon the ground that he had paid a certain sum of money into the Government treasury at the defendant's request in order to discharge the defendant's liability for payment of land revenue. He claimed the amount as a debt due from the defendant. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes in the first instance passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff having held that the money had in fact been paid by the plaintiff at the defendant's request. His attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 39, Agriculturists' Relief Act, which require that a loan to an agriculturist must be evidenced by a written document, but he held that the defendant was not an agriculturist because he paid over a thousand rupees a year by way of land revenue. The defendant put in an application for review of judgment upon the ground that the learned Judge had been guilty of an obvious mistake in law. The learned Judge entertained the application and ultimately dismissed the suit. There is no doubt that he had in the first instance made a mistake by overlooking that part of the first proviso to Section 2 (2) which says that in Section 2 do) (a) an 'agriculturist' means also a person who would belong to a class of persons mentioned in part (a) of the sub-section if the limits of land revenue were omitted. Part (a) of the sub-section lays down that an agriculturist means a person who, in districts not subject to the Benares Permanent Settlement Regulation 1795, pays land revenue not exceeding Rs. 1000 per annum. It is clear that any person who pays land revenue is an agriculturist whether he pays a land revenue of less than or more than Rs. 1000 per annum. Section 2 (10) (a) defines a loan as an advance to an agriculturist. Section 39 says:
Every loan given after the date on which this Act comes into force shall be evidenced by a written document.
The transaction on which the plaintiff sued was a loan and consequently it was required by law to be evidenced by a written document. No other evidence of this transaction could be produced because of the prohibition in Section 91, Evidence Act. The result is that the loan could not be proved and that is perfectly clear from the provisions of the various sections. I quite agree that a Court cannot admit an application for review merely upon the ground that it has made a mistake in law, but I think if the mistake is an obvious one due to failure to notice particular section of an Act, or part of such a section, it would be too much to say that the obvious error could not be corrected by the Court. In any case the power of this Court to interfere in revision is discretionary and I do not think that I should interfere to perpetuate an obvious mistake. The result is that I dismiss the application with costs.