JUDGMENT Sale, J. - I do not think it is necessary to call on the Advocate-General to reply, inasmuch as the question argued does not, in my opinion, admit of any real doubt. 2. The application is to invoke the exercise by this Court of its revisional jurisdiction over the Presidency Small Cause Court u/s 622 of the CPC and it is made on the Original Side of this Court to a Judge exercising the Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court. 3. The application is not made in the usual course by an advocate ' of this Court, but it is made by a vakil, who is admittedly not entitled to practise on the Original Side of this Court. The vakil contends, however, that the revisional powers which I am asked to exercise do not fall within, or form past of, the. Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court and I am asked to deal with the application as a Judge exercising some jurisdiction other than the Original Civil Jurisdiction which, it is argued, has, for the purposes of applications of this character, been conferred on mo by a Rule of Court recently issued. 4. I am unable to assent to the proposition that the revisional powers of this Court, so far as the Presidency Small Cause Court is concerned, can only be exorcised by this Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction. 5. It is a remarkable fact that the jurisdiction of a Judge sitting on the Original Side to exercise revisional powers over the Presidency Small Cause Court, which is now challenged for the first time, has been exercised ever since the establishment of the High Court over 40 years ago, as its records abundantly show. Within this period innumerable applications have been heard and determined by single Judges sitting on the Original Side of this Court and orders and decrees of the Small Cause Court have from time to time been varied or set aside. No Court would, I venture to say, arrive at the conclusion that this jurisdiction had been wrongly exercised and the orders made thereunder for a long series of years were null and void, except upon the clearest grounds. I am aware that these revisional powers have in recent years been exercised on various occasions by Division Benches fitting on the Appellate Side of this Court. I am aware that these revisional powers have in recent years been exercised on various occasions by Division Benches fitting on the Appellate Side of this Court. I say nothing with reference to the question as regards the exercise by this Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction of these revisional powers. I think, however, the fact that the High Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction has exercised these revisional powers does not necessarily affect the present question, which is whether revisional powers are, by legislative enactment or otherwise, excluded from the Original Jurisdiction of this Court. Revisional Jurisdiction of the Court is not necessarily a part of its Appellate Jurisdiction, for a Court which has no Appellate Jurisdiction over another Court may still exercise Revisional Jurisdiction over it. 6. In this way the Supreme Court exercised Revisional Jurisdiction other tie President Small Cause Court and on the abolition of the 'Supreme Court, the High Court in its Original Jurisdiction, being vested with the powers of the Supreme Court as a Court of Original Jurisdiction, continued the exercise of the same revisional powers. 7. I find nothing in Section 15 of the Charter Act or in Section 6 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act which confines revisional powers to the Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court, nor are the cases which have been cited any authority for that contention. 8. The remaining question is whether the recent Rule which has been issued has the effect of vesting the Judges sitting on the Original Side of the Court with some new or special jurisdiction so as to enable them to exercise powers which they would be otherwise unable to exercise. I do not think it was intended that this Rule should have any such effect or operation. So far as I know, the only object of the Rule was to set at rest the question which had arisen whether, for the future, applications for the exercise of the Court's revisional powers over the Presidency Small Cause Court should be heard on the Appellate or on the Original Side of the Court. It has now been decided that the. Original Side practice to hear and determine these applications is to be continued and that the irregularity--if I may use the expression--of sometimes making these applications on the Appellate Side of the Court should be discontinued. 9. It has now been decided that the. Original Side practice to hear and determine these applications is to be continued and that the irregularity--if I may use the expression--of sometimes making these applications on the Appellate Side of the Court should be discontinued. 9. In these circumstances I am of opinion that this application must be dealt with in the exercise of the Original Jurisdiction of this Court and that the motion must be made in the usual way by an advocate of the Court, instructed by an attorney and not by as vakil who is not entitled to audience on the Original Side of the Court. 10. At the request of the vakil the petition was returned to him in order that it might be properly presented.