JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, C.J. - In these three cases, the trial court recorded certain findings on questions of fact. The trial courts judgment was taken up in revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional Court found that the findings of the trial court were vitiated by some error of law, or were not quite correct. It then proceeded to reappraise and re(sic) the evidence for itself and recorded a finding on the same questions of fact. It arrived at a different conclusion. The trial courts' decree was reversed. The losing party came to the High Court in revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the submissions was that u/s 25 aforesaid, the court and no jurisdiction to reassess the evidence for itself. It is found that the trial courts findings were vitiated by some error of law it could send the case back after laying own proper legal guidelines. In support, reliance was placed upon a decision of the learned Single Judge in Muneshwar Das Jain v. Prayag Narain Gaur 1979 RCC (UP) 301. The learned Single Judge felt that the decision in Muneshwar Das Jain's case requires reconsideration. He accordingly referred the following question of law for decision by a larger Bench:

Whether u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act a revisional court can pass a suitable decree in a case on a consideration of the evidence on record, if it finds that the findings recorded by the trial court were vitiated by an error of law, or can it only remand the case for a fresh trial?

2. Section 25 provides for a revision against the orders of the court of Small Causes. It provides:

25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes-The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a court of small causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such orders with respect there to as it thinks fit.

3. This provision confers a supervisory and not an appellate power. The record can be called for seeing that the decree is according to law. If it is not, the revisional court can pass such orders with respect thereto as it may think fit. This power is conditional on the revisional court finding that the decree or order sought to be revised was not according to law. The phrase 'pass such orders with respect thereto as it thinks fit' has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in several decisions. In Arbind Kumar Singh Vs. Nand Kishore Prasad and Others, AIR 1968 SC 1227 , it was held that the clause was wide enough to give power to the revisional court to. admit additional evidence. In Mangallal Chhotabhai Desai v. Chandrakant Motilal AIR 1979 SC 37 it was held that the expression authorised the revisional court to issue directions to the parties to the caw. In State of Kerala Vs. K.M. Charia Abdullah and Co., AIR 1965 SC 1585 it was observed that the revisional court has power to pass such orders for rectifying the defect as the revisional court considers, in the circumstances of the case, just and proper.

4. On the other hand, the phrase 'according to law' occurring in Section 25 aforesaid, was considered by the Supreme Court in Hari Shanker v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chaudhary AIR 1963 SC 695 it was held that the phrase 'according to law' refers to the decision as a whole and is not to be equated to error of law or of fact simpliciter. The over-all decision must be according to law, i.e. there should be no miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law. The Court approved the observations of Beaumont, C.J. in Bell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Waman Hemraj, AIR 1938 Bom 223 where the learned Chief Justice had given some instances in which the court could interfere u/s 25. They were where the court had no jurisdiction in the matter, where a party had not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or that the burden of proof had been misplaced on wrong shoulders or where the court had based its decision on evidence which should not have been admi