HARI SWARUP, J. :- This matter has come before us as a question referred by a learned Single Judge hearing the civil revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. The question referred is:-

"Is a revision against the judgment and decree of the District Judge passed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?"

2. The suit giving rise to this revision had been instituted in the court of Judge Small Causes and was decreed by him. A revision was preferred against the decree of the Judge Small Causes and the Additional District Judge partially allowed the revision and modified the decree passed by the trial court.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party, in support of his preliminary objection, contended, firstly, that the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the revision is barred by Section 7, Civil P. C; secondly that it is barred by Section 27 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thirdly, that the District Judge, while exercising powers under Section 25 of the Act, does not act as a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. We do not find force in any of these contentions.

4. Section 7, Civil P.C. rearranged as relevant to the present case will read:-

Section 115 shall not extend to courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

This means that the power under Section 115, Civil P.C. will not be available where the case has been decided by a court constituted under the Act. The revision filed is not against any case decided by a court constituted under the Act. It has been filed against the decree or order passed by the District Judge. The District Judge cannot be said to be a court constituted under the Act. The court of the District Judge has been constituted under

Section 3 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court Act. Section 7, Civil P.C, does not, therefore, bar the

applicability of Section 115, Civil P.C. to a case decided by the District Judge.

5. Section 27 of the Act reads as follows:-

"Save as provided by this Act, a decree or order made under the foregoing provisions of this Act by a Court of Small Causes shall be final".

A plain reading of this section gives finality only to decrees or orders passed by a Court of small causes. The section does not give finality to the orders passed by courts other than courts of small causes. There is thus no apparent bar to a case decided by the District Judge being revised by the High Court under Section 115, Civil P.C. The learned counsel for the opposite-party placed reliance on the case of South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v. S.B. Sarup Singh, AIR 1965 SC 1442 in support of his contention that the order of the District Judge passed under Sec.25 of the Act is final. The Supreme Court however had to consider in that case Sec.43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which reads as follows:-

"43. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by the Controller or an order passed on appeal under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding".

It was held in this case that after the appeal was decided by the High Court under Section 39(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, an appeal against the appellate order was not maintainable under Cl.10 of the Letters Patent, Lahore. It is clear from Section 43 itself that the appellate order was made final and hence an appeal against the appellate order was held to be barred. The wordings of Section 27 of the Act do not however give any finality to the order passed by the District Judge under Section 25 of the Act. Moreover, when Section 27 of the Act uses the words "Save as provided by this Act"., it means that the order must be passed under Section 25 in accordance with law and the High Court, in its powers under Section 115, Civil P.C. does nothing except to determine w