1. In this case, it appears that two rent suits were tried by a Munsif who. was invested with powers under Section 153 (6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In one suit, the amount claimed was Rs. 40-2, in the other it was Rs, 19-7. The Munsif decreed both the suits in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants then lodged appeals in both cases before the Subordinate Judge, who decreed the appeals in one judgment. A Rule was granted to show cause why the order of the Subordinate Judge should not be set aside. On the merits, the ground put forward by the petitioner is that under the circumstances, the decrees of the Munsif were final and that no appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge. This appears to us to be so. The point was not taken before the lower Appellate Court, but it is a question of jurisdiction. On the merits, therefore, this Rule is made absolute and the petitioner is entitled to his costs, the hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur.
2. A preliminary objection, however, was raised before us, that it is not competent to this Court to grant a Rule on a single petition which would have the effect of setting aside two decrees, although those two decrees were made the matter of a single appeal. We are not inclined to agree that the powers of this Court are so limited. But in any case, it makes no practical difference because we have power to act under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, in either of the cases. Therefore, either taking the Rule as it stands or acting under the provisions of Section 115 in one of these appeals, we see no reason to modify the order which we have just made.