B.R. Gavai, J.

1. These matters have been placed before this Court in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in view of the reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the present petitions.

2. The learned Single Judge, while making a reference found that the learned single Judge of this Court (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) in the case of Dilip Bidesh & Ors. vs. Shivgopal Madangopal Chaurasia & ors., reported in 2005 (6) Bom C.R. 207 had taken a view that the revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) would not be tenable against the order of the District Judge passed under Section 27 of the Bombay Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the “Said Act”). Whereas, another Single Judge of this Court (A.S. Oka, J.) in the case of Dhuliabai Mana Praga and ors. vs. Manikbai Vithalrao Bhusarath (Deceased) reported in 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 524 has taken a view that the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be tenable since the revision under Section 115 of the Code is an alternate remedy available to a litigant. Noticing this conflict, the learned Single Judge has framed the following question for consideration by the Larger Bench.

“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Court under the provisions of the Section 26A of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 can be challenged in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887?”

As such, the learned Chief Justice has placed these matters before us for answering the said issue.

3. Mr. Kavimandan holding for Mr. Khapre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions.

i. Section 27 of the said Act has been amended vide Maharashtra Amendment Act 24 of 1984, which was brought into effect from 01.01.1985, has renumbered Section 27 as 25A of the said Act. He further submits that vide the said amendment, the new chapter i.e. chapter 4A1 has been brought into the statute book providing for recovery of possession of certain immovable property and certain license fees and rents. Mr. Kavimandan submitted that as such in view of placement of Section 27 which is now Section 25A, insofar as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, the word “foregoing” would make its application restricted to the sections which are prior to Section 25A.

ii. Mr. Kavimandan submits that even if his first contention is not accepted, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. I.T.I. Ltd. vs. M/s. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd.; reported in AIR 2002 SC 2308, and in the case of M/s. Jetha Bai and Sons, Jew Town, Cochin etc. vs. M/s. Sunderdas Rathenai etc.; reported in AIR 1988 SC 812, it will have to be held that presumption is in favour of the availability of jurisdiction to a Civil Court. The learned counsel further submits that the bar of tenability of revision under Section 7 of the Code is restricted only to the orders passed by the 'Courts' established under the said Act. The learned counsel further submits that the District Court is not a Court established under the said Act but is a Court of ordinary civil jurisdiction established under the Bombay Civil Courts Act. The learned counsel therefore submits that the bar under section 27 of the said Act could not be stretched to the extent that an order passed by the District Court under Section 26A is not amenable to the revision under Section 115 of the Code. He submits that the District Court, being a Court subordinate to the High Court, an order passed by it under Section 26A can very well be challenged in revision under Section 115 of the Code.

iii. The learned counsel further relied on judgment in M/s. Jetha Bai and Sons, (supra) and submits that merely giving finality to the order passed by the Co