The principal question of law that I have to determine in these two Civil Revision Petitions is whether when a Full Bench of the Small Cause Court in the Presidency Town, Madras, has dismissed an application for a new trial for default of appearance it is competent to that Court to entertain an application to set aside the order of dismissal for default.

In support of his contention that it is competent to do so the learned advocate for the petitioner advanced three arguments. The first was this. It has been decided in Lodd Govindoss Krishnadoss v. Rukmani Bai1, that when two or more Judges of the Small Cause Court are sitting together for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction conferred by section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, they are sitting “in a suit” within the meaning of those words in section 69, and if a reference is made to the High Court under its provisions, such reference is valid. Order 9, rule 9, empowers a Court to set aside an order dismissing a suit for default when a party satisfies it that he had sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called for hearing. As the Small Cause Court is sitting “in a suit” when it deals