1. The aim of the applicant in this case has been that this Court should treat an application for revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, on the same footing as a regular first appeal. We do not approve of this. The applicant was a defendant in the action. A suit was instituted against him for recovery of Rs. 645 together with interest on the allegation that the plaintiff had paid that sum of. money to the. defendant on the understanding that the amount represented the price of certain python skins to be supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff. The transaction was by the plaintiff on his own account and not on account of any third party. The defendant received the money, refused to deliver the python skins and also refused to refund the amount received by him. Hence the suit for the recovery of the principal sum together with interest. The suit, was resisted upon the ground that the plaintiff owed the defendant a certain sum of money and that the defendant was, under the circumstances, entitled to retain the money which was paid before handing over to him any python skins. The Court below considered that the case of the plaintiff was proved and that the case of the defendant was not established. It therefore gave the plaintiff a decree.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the finding of the Court below is bad in law because the Court below has ignored very material evidence produced by the defendant. It cannot be asumed from the mere fact that the Court below has not referred in detail to all the items of documentary evidence produced by the parties, that the said evidence has been ignored or discarded. If the defendant did not, during the progress of the suit, bring certain documents to the notice of the Court the blame rests with the defendant. If any documents were referred to the Court we are entitled to hold that the Court must have considered the nature and scope of these documents-before forming a conclusion on the questions in issue. A Judge is not bound to refer in his judgment to each and every item of evidence which is relied on by the parties. The finding which is now assailed does not appear to us to be open to challenge upon any legal ground. It cannot be doubted that an application for revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, has a much larger scope than one under Section 115, Civil P.C., but we are unable to accept the contention that a clear finding of the Small Cause Court can be reversed or modified by this Court upon the sole ground that the balance of evidence was in favour of the applicant. It is not .within the provinces of this Court to make an appraisement of the value or weight of the finding of the Court below. We accordingly refuse to entertain the submission. The result is that the application fails and is dismissed with costs.