The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an appeal against a decree in a small cause suit to be within the jurisdiction of the court, as per S.25 of Act IX of 1887, and the consequences of passing a decree and judgment without jurisdiction.

1. This is a Revision under S.115 C. P. C. by the plaintiff in S.C.S.323 of 1950, District Munsiff's Court Tellicherry to revise the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry in A. S.1/54 reversing the decree in S.C.S. 323/50.

2. The circumstances under which the said A.S.1 of 1954 came to the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry are some what unusual and can be stated here briefly.

3. The petitioner before me was the defendant in O. S.517/1950 on the file of the court of the District Munsiff, Tellicherry. It was filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff against the present petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 385-15-0 stated to have been borrowed by the defendant including interest on the same and certain other expenses.

4. This suit O. S.517/50 was contested by the petitioner herein on the ground that he had not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff therein and also contended that the plaintiff's case was false and had been filed only as a counter blast to his suit S.C.S. 323/1950.

5. The present petitioner had filed as plaintiff S. C. S.323/1950 against the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 144-13-3 on account of certain dealings stated to have taken place between them. This suit, in turn, was contested by the respondent herein.

6. As the petitioner and the respondent before me figured as plaintiff and defendant in the above original and small cause suit they appear to have agreed for having a joint trial of the two suits and common evidence was recorded in O. S.517 of 1950.

7. The learned District Munsiff dismissed O. S.517/1950 (the respondent's suit) and decreed S. C. S.323/1950 (the petitioner's suit).

8. Against the dismissal of his suit O. S.517/1950, the respondent herein filed A. S.348/1953 before the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. Against the decree passed in S. C. S.323/1950 the respondent herein filed C. R. P. 1462/1951 to the High Court, Madras under S.25 of Act IX of 1887, as he had no right of appeal.

9. It will be seen that S. C. S.323/1950 was tried only as a small cause suit and a Revision against the said order was the only remedy available to the respondent herein. It appears that the High Court returned the C. R. P. 1462/ 1951 to the respondent herein for presentation to the District Court to be heard along with his other appeal A. S.348/53 mentioned above. With great respect to the learned judge, it is not known under what provision of law such an order returning the C R.P. to the District Court was passed; S.25 of the Act IX of 1887 gives power only to the High Court to entertain a Revision against a decree in a small cause suit and the District Court has no powers at all of either entertaining an appeal or a Revision. The actual order of the learned judge has not been placed before me. If I may say so with respect, if the learned judge thought that the C. R. P. in the High Court and the appeal pending in the District Court require to be jointly heard the proper order would have been to withdraw the appeal from the District Court to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of along with the C. R. P. The C. R. P. appears to have been re-presented in the District Court and it was registered as A.S. No. 392/1953 and ultimately transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court where it was numbered as A. S.1/1954, though no appeal is competent against the decree of the Small Cause Court.

10. The learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the decree in O. S.517/ 1950 and dismissed A. S.348/1953. No further proceedings have been taken against the decree in A.S. 348/1953.

11. The learned Subordinate Judge however reversed the decree in S.C.S. 323 of 1950 and allowed A. S.1/1954. The plaintiff in S. C. S.323/1950 has filed this Revision against A. S.1/1954, Sub Court, Tellicherry.

12. Mr. Sridharan, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has contended before me that the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in A. S.1/1954 reversing the decision in S. C