ORDER Braund, J. - This is not a case in which I feel I can interfere. It is a Small Cause Court matter concerning the purchase of nets. It is a very simple matter. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants made a contract with him to make certain nets. He says he made them and now he claims to be paid for them. The only contest was where the contract was made. The plaintiff says it was a verbal contract made at Meerut; whereas the defendants said that it was not anything of the kind but was a written contract made at Delhi. 2. It has to be admitted that on the facts of his judgment the Judge has not dealt with the matter at all fully. In point of fact, he has not even mentioned this question of which of them was telling the truth about the place where the contract was made. But if one reads the evidence, as I have done, it is as clear as anything can be that it was raised as a question of fact whether this transaction was governed by a contract made at Meerut or a contract made at Delhi. The plaintiff alleged quite positively that there were two contracts, one at Meerut and the other at Delhi, and that what the defendants were doing was that they were trying to muddle up the one with the other. The evidence makes it clear that this question was gone into and I cannot, therefore, in a Small Cause Court matter attach any significance to the fact that the Judge has not actually mentioned it in his judgment. What the Judge has decided in this judgment is that a certain amount of money was payable. 3. I am satisfied that the Judge did consider the facts and that being so, I am not here in revision to review a decision of fact by the Small Cause Court Judge. A comment is made, quite justifiably, that the judgment was not written for six weeks after the hearing. There may of course, be some explanation which I know nothing about. I feel in the circumstances that I must dismiss this revision with costs.