1. The judgment of the Small Cause Court is in accordance with the requirements of Order XX, Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. We are unable, with respect, to follow the line taken by Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in Kandasami Chetty v. Ramalinga Chetty 59 Ind. Cas. 906 : 12 L.W. 285 so far as his judgment purports to lay down as a rule of law anything different from Order XX, Rule 4(1) as to what Small Cause Court judgments should contain.
3. We think that the learned Judge's judgment was based on his opinion of what the practice should be in such matters rather than oh what the law of procedure actually is. It seems to us that Order XX, Rule 4(1) is self-contained and does not need any expansion or explanation by judicial rulings.
4. Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Co. v. Mattai Subba Rao 55 Ind. Cas. 754 : 43 M. 617 : 38 M.L.J. 360 : (1920) M.W.N. 198 : 11 L.W. 358 : 28 M.L.T. is ail instance of interference by the High Court where a Small Cause Court's decision was reached without reference to material evidence. That is not the case here. It was open to the Small Cause Judge to discredit the promissory-note which bore no signatures but only what were alleged to be the defendants' marks seeing that they both totally denied on oath having executed the note. We decline to interfere and dismiss this civil revision petition with costs.