1. I do not think there is any need to issue notion on these three civil revision petitions. They arise out of three small cause suits filed by the plaintiff to recover moneys from thres different defendants. These suits were by consent taken on to the original side, filed and tried along with O. S. No. 474 of 1948 by the District Munsif of Vellore, a suit filed by the same plaintiff to recover a larger sum from another defendant. There were common defences and defendants 2-6 were impleaded on a contention that they were partners along with the plaintiff who claimed to be the solo proprietor of a business to whom these defendants were indebted. The learned District Munsif tried all the four suits together on common evidence and gave the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 8 a joint decree against the four separate main defendants. Plaintiff has filed a regular appeal in O. S. No. 474 of 1948 in the District Court, Vellore, and he has come by way of revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, to this Court to revise the judgment so far as it relates to the decree passed in the small causa suits.
2. It would be manifestly inconvenient if not absurd for this Court to revise this very judgment which is pending regular appeal be-fore the District Court. Technically the Seamed advocate who filed these petitions here in time may be correct, as if he filed regular appeals from decrees which on their face purport to be small cause decrees they may be liable to summary rejection on admission.
3. It is obviously desirable that from one judgment there should be either an appeal or a revision. The confusion has arisen by the District Munsif, when he decided to try small cause suits along with an original suit by consent of parties, not giving the small cause suits original side numbers and trying them all as original suits. A small cause suit loses its character as such immediately it is withdrawn to the original side and tried along with an original suit. Nor can I see anything in the Provincial Small Causa Coasts Act which is against this com-monsense and practical view. The learned advocate for the petitioner is quite agreeable to the return of these civil revision petitions to him for presentation before the District Court, Vellore, as appeals on which the ordinary ad valorem court-fee should be paid. They have been filed in this Court in time and it cannot be said that the petitioner has chosen, in view of confusion in existing practice, a wrong remedy or forum. I am quite unable to see how a small cause suit can continue in this category once it is taken on to the original side and disposed of along with an original suit. When this is done the small cause suit should be re numbered as an original suit. The District Court is directed to admit these civil revision petitions if presented properly stamped and give them a disposal along with the connected appeal pending on its file. In these petitions three separate typed copies of the lower Court judgment each covering 63 pagas of copy stamped paper have been filed. This has involved a wholly unnecessary wastage of paper and expense, In filing appeals against a common judgment, such as this in my opinion it would have been quite sufficient if the plaintiff had filed only one copy of the judgment for the four appeals with of couse separate decree copies. The leave of the Court in a case of this kind could quite easily be obtained to file only one copy of the judgment for appeals arising out of it. One month's time is given from this date to present these petitions as appeals in the District Court. The papers will be returned to the advocate and a copy of this order also sent direct to the District Court, Vellore.