1. This is an application in revision by a defendant against whom the Small Cause Court has passed a decree. The first, three grounds deal with the question of jurisdiction. The suit was for Rs. 759-14-11. It. was filed in the Small Cause Court, in Gorakhpur On 11th July 1934, this suit along with certain other suits was transferred by the District Judge from the Small Cause Court to the Subordinate Judge under Section 24, Civil P. C. The Subordinate Judge tried the suit on the regular side. The form heading has the words 'Judge of Small Cause-Court' altered to the words 'Subordinate Judge. Gorakhpur' and the evidence is taken at considerable length. The argument which has been put, forward for the applicant, is that under Section 16, Provincial Small Cause Courts-Act, the trial by the Subordinate Judge was illegal because there was a Court of Small Causes in Gorakhpur, at the time by which the suit was triable. It was necessary for the applicant, in revision to show that there was a Small Cause Court in Gorakhpur at the time by which the suit was triable, that is, that there was an officer in Gorakhpur who had Small Cause Court, powers to try a suit of the amount of Rupees 759-14-11. It is a fact, that Gorakhpur is one of the places where a: Small Cause Court Judge is usually posted, but it does not follow that there was an officer with these powers posted on the date of transfer, 11th July 1934, and it was necessary for the applicant, in revision to show this from a reference to not only civil lists, but also gazettes. This has not been done. If the assumption were made in favour of the applicant the argument would then proceed as follows: Under Section 16, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, no-other Court has jurisdiction to try a suit of a Small Cause Court nature in a judgeship where there is a Small Cause Court Judge 'having jurisdiction to try a suit. Section 24, Civil P.C. (1)(b)(2) states that the District Judge may withdraw any suit pending in any Court subordinate to him and transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to him and competent to try or dispose of the same. It is alleged that the Subordinate Judge was not competent, to try or dispose of the suit because of Section 16, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. There is a further provision in Section 24(4) as follows:
The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.
2. In regard to this sub-section the argument is that the transfer must be made to a Court which has Small Cause Court powers. This argument is supported by a ruling reported in Bajoo v. Tulshs 1918 Oudh 160. That ruling however was of the Court, of a Judicial Commissioner and not of a High Court. In this High Court the question has arisen in similar cases in three rulings mentioned for the opposite party, namely, Sukha v. Raghunath Das 1917 All. 62, Chaturi Singh v. Mst. Rania 1918 All. 290 and Ram Charan Banwari Lal : AIR1929All50 . In these cases the question was where a case had been transferred under Section 24 to an officer not having Small Cause Court, powers and it had been tried as a regular suit whether an appeal lay or whether the case should have been deemed to be one tried by a Court of Small Causes. This Court held in all the cases that no appeal lay because under Section 24(4) the Court trying the suit must be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. No question arose before this Court as to whether such a transfer would be invalid and this suggestion has never been put, forward in any reported ruling shown of this Court.
3. One of the difficulties in the way of the interpretation of Section 24(4) put forward by the applicant in revision is that the sub-section would appear to be superfluous and meaningless on that view. The argument is that the transfer must be made to a Court having Small Cause Court powers. If that be so, why is a sub-section enacted which explains that that Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes). Clearly the sub-section refers to a Court which is not a Court of Small Causes and which is only deemed to be a Court of Small Causes by virtue of the sub-section. I note that the Oudh ruling to which reference has been made did not attempt to deal with this difficulty. I consider that the argument for the applicant is unsound and as already noted he has not established his point by reference to gazettes which would show that there was on the date in question a Small Cause Court in Gorakhpur by which the suit was triable. Some distinction was alleged by learned Counsel for the applicant to exist between a Small Cause Court Judge and a Court which had Small Cause Court powers. In Section 4 of the Act, it is stated that a Court of Small Causes includes any person exercising jurisdiction under the Act in any such Court. This shows no such distinction can be drawn.
4. The remaining two grounds deal with the merits of the case and allege that the lower Court was wrong in its finding of fact. I consider that it is not; open to this Court in a revision under Section 25 from a Small Cause Court to consider the findings of fact on their merits. For these reasons I dismiss this application in revision with costs.