JUDGMENT 1. The appellant borrowed from the respondent two sums of money on pledge of ornaments, a sum of Rs. 300 in May 1928 and another sum of Rs. 400 in August 1928. She agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum on both those loans. Upto July 1932, she had paid a total sum of Rs. 1795-8-0. If interest be calculated at the rate provided for in S. 30, Bengal Money-lenders Act, the whole of the principal and interest due upto July 1932 would be wiped off by the said payment and nothing further would be due. But as the Bengal Money-lenders Act had not been passed then, the borrower went on paying sums of money to the lender thereafter, which totalled Rs. 904 on 10th April 1942. The borrower instituted a suit against the lender in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, under S. 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act claiming refund of the said sum of Rs. 904. The suit was heard by Mr. Kishorilal Chatterjee, one of the Judges of the Small Causes, Calcutta. By his judgment and decree he has dismissed the suit. The borrower has preferred this appeal against the said judgment and decree. Mr. Sudhindra Kumar Mitra who appears for the respondent, namely, the lender, raises a preliminary objection. His objection is that an appeal does not lie to this Court. Mr. Das who appears for the appellant contends that an appeal to this Court is competent by reason of the provisions of S. 5(3), Bengal Money-lenders Act. 2. In order that an appeal to this Court should be competent, it must be shown that the legislature has given expressly a right of appeal to this Court. It is an established principle of law that a right of appeal is the creature of Statute and where the Statute does not give expressly the right of appeal there is no right under general principles of law: Sandback Charity Trustees v. North Staffordshire Ry. Co., (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 1 : (47 L.J.Q.B. 10) and Rangoon Botatoung Co. Ltd. v. The Collector, Rangoon, 39 I.A. 197 : (40 Cal. 21). The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act provides in S. 37 that every decree and order of the Small Cause Court in a suit shall be final and conclusive. Co., (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 1 : (47 L.J.Q.B. 10) and Rangoon Botatoung Co. Ltd. v. The Collector, Rangoon, 39 I.A. 197 : (40 Cal. 21). The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act provides in S. 37 that every decree and order of the Small Cause Court in a suit shall be final and conclusive. Section 38 of the Act gives a right to a suitor which is in the nature of an appeal. It is called new trial of contested cases. The new trial is to be held by the Judges of the Small Causes Court and the practice in the new trial is for the Chief Judge to sit with the trying Judge. As the decree has been passed by the Small Causes Court, it would be a final decree under S. 37, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act subject to the right to have a new trial under the provisions of S. 38 of that Act unless it can be held that the Bengal Money-lenders Act has given a right of appeal to this Court in express terms from a decree passed in a suit instituted by borrower under S. 36(1) of the Act. 3. In two places of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, there are express provisions for appeals from the decision by the Small Causes Court, Calcutta to this Court. They are in S. 5(3) and S. 20(4), Bengal Money-lenders Act. So far as sub-s. (4) of S. 20 is concerned, it gives a right of appeal to a person aggrieved by the decision made by a Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, relating to the concellation of a license given to the moneylenders. Sub-section (3) of S. 5 of the Act, however, is couched in more general words. That sub-section is as follows: An appeal from a decision made by the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta under this Act shall lie to the High Court as if it were an appeal under sub-s. (2) to the High Court from a decision made by a District Court. The question is whether that sub-section contemplates appeals from the decision made by a Court of Small Causes of Calcutta functioning as a "competent Court" within the meaning of the Bengal Money-lenders Act or from every decision given by the Small Causes Court whether functioning as a "competent Court" or as a Court determining civil matters. 4. Mr. The question is whether that sub-section contemplates appeals from the decision made by a Court of Small Causes of Calcutta functioning as a "competent Court" within the meaning of the Bengal Money-lenders Act or from every decision given by the Small Causes Court whether functioning as a "competent Court" or as a Court determining civil matters. 4. Mr. Das appearing for the appellant contends in favour of the last mentioned construction. Mr. Mitra appearing for the respondent contends that that sub-section contemplates an appeal from an order of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, functioning as a "competent Court". The powers of a "competent Court" under the Act are contained in Ss. 16and 19 read with S. 20 of the Act. The power to grant a license to a money-lender has been conferred upon a Sub-Registrar and an appeal from his order if licence had been refused lies to the Registrar authorised under S. 6 and a "competent Court" which so far as Calcutta area is concerned means the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, is given the power to revise the order of the Registrar passed on appeal. A competent Court is also given the power to hold an enquiry for the purpose of seeing whether the license given to a moneylender is to be cancelled and sub-s. (4) of S. 20 confers a right of appeal from an order made in those proceedings by the Court of Small Causes functioning as a "competent Court" to this Court. Section 5 is in chap. II of the Act and the heading of that Chapter is "Competent Courts and Procedure". In S. 16, it is laid down that the rules prescribed by the Province of Bengal under the Bengal Money-lenders Act would regulate the procedure of "competent Courts" when exercising power under S. 16 but those rules are not to apply in matters of procedure when the "competent Courts" are exercising powers under Ss. 19 and 20, that is to say, when the matter for consideration is the cancellation of a license already given to a money-lender. Sub-section (1) of S. 6 enacts that in the enquiry started under S. 19, that is to say where the subject matter for consideration is cancellation of a money-lender's license the procedure laid down in the CPC is to be followed by the "competent Court". Sub-section (1) of S. 6 enacts that in the enquiry started under S. 19, that is to say where the subject matter for consideration is cancellation of a money-lender's license the procedure laid down in the CPC is to be followed by the "competent Court". Sub-section (2) enacts that every order made by a "competent Court" under the Act shall be subject to appeal in accordance with the provisions of the CPC applicable to appeals. Then follows sub-s. (3) the terms of which we have already quoted. As that sub-section is in chap. II which deals with "competent Courts" and the procedure of those Courts, and is a subjection of S. 5 which deals with "competent Courts" we hold that sub-s. (3) relates to an appeal from the decision made by the Court of Small Causes Calcutta, functioning as a "competent Court", that is to say, where the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, makes an order in revision by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by S. 16(5) or cancels a license by virtue of the powers conferred by S. 19 read with S. 20 of the Act, an appeal would lie from the decision of the Court of Small Causes Calcutta to the appellate side of this Court. That is, in our judgment, the scope of sub-s. (3) of S. 5 of the Act. Where a Small Causes Court is not functioning as a "competent Court" under the Bengal Money-lenders Act but decides a civil suit, there would be no appeal to this Court. A decision by the Judge of Small Causes Court, Calcutta, in a suit filed under S. 36(1), Bengal Money-lenders Act would be a decision which would be governed by Ss. 37 and 38, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. 5. We accordingly hold that this appeal is incompetent. It is accordingly dismissed but without costs. 6. No order is necessary on the Stamp Reporter's report.