- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 21st October, 1994 has referred the matter to the Division Bench for decision whether the court exercising revisional powers under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the Act), can admit the additional evidence while entertain ing the revision. The reference order reads as under : "the main question involved before this Court is for adjudication is whether the Court sitting in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act can take additional evidence. There are conflicting decisions of this Court on this point. However it is felt that the matter should be decided by a Division Bench of this Court. "
(2.) SECTION 25 of the Act as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh reads as under: "revision of decrees and orders of courts of small causes.- The District Judge, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a court of small causes was according to law, may of his own motion, or on the application of the aggrieved party made within 30 days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. " The power and procedure, of a particular court, tribunal or authority is to be determined primarily from the provisions of applicable statute itself. The procedure to be followed by the revisional court under the said Act is governed by the proce dure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter called the Code ). Section 7 of the Code excludes the application of various sections of the Code. However, it does not exclude the application of Section 151 of the Code which provides for exercise of inherent powers of the Court. Order L of the Code excludes the operation of certain orders and rules provided under the schedule of the said Code to the proceedings before the court under the Act. Order L reads as under: "provincial Small Causes Courts : The provisions hereinafter specified shall not extend to courts constituted under the Provincial Small Causes Act, 1887 (9 of 1987 ). . . that is to say, (a) * * * * (b) The following rules and orders : **** Order Li Section 17 of the Act reads as under: "application of the Code of Civil Procedure.- (1) The procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, shall, save insofar as in otherwise provided by that Code or by this Act, by the procedure followed in a court of small causes in all suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suit. "
(3.) IN Malini Ayyappa Naickar v. Seth Manghraj Udhavidas Firm, AIR 1969 SC 1344, the Supreme Court considered the scope of revisional powers under the Provincial INsolvency Act, 1920, which is identical to Section 25 of the Act and held as under: "quite clearly the legislature did not confer on the High Court. . . . . an appellate power nor did it confer on it a jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence on record. While examining that power the High Court is by and large bound by the findings of fact recorded by the District Court. If the legislature intended to confer power on it to re-examine both questions of law and fact it would have conveyed its intention by appropriate words as has been done under various other statutes. A wrong decision on facts by a competent court is also a decision according to law. For these reasons we cannot accept the contention. . . . that the Act enables it to be de novo examine the finding of fact reached by the District court. " The Apex court quoted the passage from the judgment in Bell and Company Limited v. Woman Hemraj, AIR 1938 Bom 223, wherein the Bombay High Court had considered the scope of powers under Section 25 of the Act and observed as under: "the object of Section 25 is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice, that decision was given according to law. . . . Wherever the court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law, then the court can interfere. But,. . . . . the court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at. ";