JUDGMENT 1. These rules have been issued in respect of 7 out of 13 analogous rent suits which were instituted in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Balas ore. In these suits, it appears that the Plaintiff claimed to recover arrears of rent from the Defendants partly In produce and partly In money and that the Defendants in each case set up the plea that rent or money alone was payable by them and they also in each case pleaded payment. The Court of first instance decided the question of the amount of rent payable In favour of the Defendants and also found that to a certain extent the plea of payment had been substantiated in each case. Therefore, modified decrees have been given and against these modified decrees, the Plaintiff appealed. As the amount sued for in six of the oases exceeded Rs. 100 appeals were preferred against the decisions in these oases to the District Judge. In the remaining seven, in respect of which these rules have been issued, the amount sued for did not exceed Rs. 100 in each case and therefore appeals were preferred to the Collector. The Collector without waiting for the decision by the superior Court of Appeal of the questions in issue which were analogous in all the thirteen oases proceeded to dispose of the 7 appeals preferred to his Court and dismissed them all with costs. It is in respect of these 7 suits that the present application was made to this Court and the rules issued. The rules were to the following effect, viz., that the opposite party should show cause why the order of the Deputy Collector should not be set aside on the ground that he acted with material irregularity in refusing to postpone the case for the production of necessary evidence in his Court and why the judgment and order of the Collector confirming that order should not be set aside on the ground that, under the circumstances, other analogous oases being on appeal to the District Judge, he did not exercise his discretion correctly in deciding those oases without waiting for the decision of the higher Court of Appeal. The latter portion of the rule ought more properly to precede the former as we have to deal first with the decree of the Appellate Court and then with the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance. 2. It appears that subsequent to the issue of these rules by this Court, the six appeals to the District Judge of Cuttack have been heard and disposed of with the result that in each case, the District Judge has ordered the suit to be remanded to the Court of first instance, the Deputy Collector, in order that he might admit the evidence which be had failed to admit and then proceed, after giving both parties reasonable opportunities to prove their oases, to dispose of the cases according to law. 3. The learned pleader who appears in support of these rules has suggested that similar orders should be passed with reference to these 7 suits. The learned pleader who appears to oppose the rules has In the first instance contended that, under the provisions of sec. 153 of Act X of 1859, this Court has no jurisdiction to revise the judgments and decrees of the Collector or of the Deputy Collector. 4. We do not think that that contention can now be accepted as It has been frequently held in this Court that it has powers either under see. 622, C. P. C, or if not under sec. 15 of the Charter Act to interfere in cases where the lower Courts have not acted correctly according to law. 5. It has also been contended that this Court cannot deal with the present cases under sec. 622, C. P. C, because the judgment and decree of the Deputy Collector were appeasable to the Collector. The case of Ram Kristo Roy v. Naik Tara Das 12 C. L. R. 449 (1883). has been relied on. In these oases, however, rules have been issued with the object not merely of setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector but also of setting aside the appellate order of the Collector, and we do not think that that ruling has any bearing on the present oases. 6. It has lastly been suggested that on the merits the present rules ought to be discharged. 6. It has lastly been suggested that on the merits the present rules ought to be discharged. It is argued that the Plaintiff ought to have produced the evidence, namely, the Robokari of the Assistant Settlement Officer, that before the Deputy Collector they had full opportunity to do so, and that as they failed to produce it, they cannot now claim to have the judgments and decrees of the Collector and Deputy Collector set aside on the ground that adjournments ought to have been granted in order to enable them to produce that document. 7. The judgment of the learned District Judge, in the other six appeals which had been preferred to his Court, has been laid before us and the correctness of the facts set out in it have not. been disputed. He points out that these 13 suits which ware all analogous were pending before the Deputy Collector up to the 5th July 1905, and that the Plaintiff had applied to the Deputy Collector to have the Settlement Officer's Robokari produced and admitted as evidence in the case. That Robokari was at the time filed In two other cases which were under appeal to the District Judge, and an application was made to the District Judge at that time for the production of the Robokari. The Deputy Collector was in reply informed that it could not be returned until the appeals were disposed of. The Deputy Collector waited from 5th July to the 13th of November and then apparently on some report which he saw of the District Judge's office he disposed of these oases on the 13th November. The two appeals in which the document had been filed were disposed of In the following January and it is not clear why, having waited for four months for the disposal of the appeals, the Deputy Collector could not have waited longer or could not have taken steps to ascertain from the District Judge when these appeals were likely to be heard so that the document on which the Plaintiff relied and which was filed in those suits might be produced as evidence in the cases then before him. The District Judge who has disposed of the appeals has had the documents in question filed in his Court and after perusing that document has come to the conclusion that it ought to have been admitted in evidence in the Court of the Deputy Collector and that the suits should not have been disposed of by the Deputy Collector without considering that evidence. The contention advanced on behalf of the opposite party that the present Petitioner failed to take proper steps to secure the production of the document before the Deputy Collector does not appear to be supported by the evidence. It appears that he took steps by an application made to the Court in which the suits were pending to have the document produced but that he failed to secure its production. It is hardly reasonable to suppose that after the Court had failed to secure the production of the document the Petitioner would have imagined that by an application under sec. 144, C. P. C, he would be more successful. In our opinion, the Petitioner took all reasonable steps to secure the production of the document and certainly it was not his fault that it was not in evidence before the Deputy Collector when he disposed of the thirteen cases. 8. The learned Collector In disposing of the seven appeals in respect of which these rules have been issued has not recorded a satisfactory judgment. He has merely stated the facts and has recorded his findings but has not attempted to state what reasons he had for arriving at these findings on the facts. In dealing with the document, the Collector merely remarks that the original Robokari of the Settlement Officer not being forthcoming, under the circumstances it cannot be relied upon. It is impossible to understand what he meant by the concluding portion of his remark; as, if the document was not produced before him, it is hard to understand how he could arrive at any conclusion whether it was entitled to any reliance or not. It is impossible to understand what he meant by the concluding portion of his remark; as, if the document was not produced before him, it is hard to understand how he could arrive at any conclusion whether it was entitled to any reliance or not. In our opinion, the Collector in disposing of the seven appeals while the six other appeals in the analogous suits were pending in the Court of the District Judge, which was a higher Court of Appeal, did not exercise his discretion wisely and we think that his decision in itself is open to adverse criticism and that the appeals should not have been disposed of by him without securing the production of the important document on which the Plaintiff relied. We further agree with the finding of the District Judge in the analogous appeals that the Deputy Collector ought not to have disposed of the 7 suits now under consideration before us without having secured the production before him of the Robokarl on which the Plaintiff relied. 9. We, therefore, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Collector and Deputy Collector in these 7 suits and we direct that the 7 suits be sent back to the Deputy Collector for rehearing. Reasonable opportunity will be given to the Plaintiff to produce in evidence, and prove, the document on which he relies, both parties will be allowed full opportunity to prove their respective cases, and the Deputy Collector after taking the evidence and duly considering it,.will proceed to dispose of the seven suits according to law. 10. Costs will abide the result. We assess the hearing fee in this Court at Rs. 140 (Rupees one hundred and forty), that is, Rs. 20 in each rule.