JUDGMENT Sen, J. - This Rule has been obtained by the Defendant against two orders passed by the Registrar of the Presidency Small Cause Court. The Plaintiffs instituted proceedings against the Defendant in ejectment under Chap. VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. On the date fixed for hearing the application, the Defendant was absent and an order for possession was made ex parte by the Registrar. The Defendant applied to have the ex parte order set aside on the ground that she was not served with the summons. That application has been rejected. Against both these orders the Defendant has obtained this Rule. 2. The first point taken by learned advocate for the Defendant is that the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to try the application. For this purpose, he referred me first to Section 4 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, which defines "the Small Cause Court" as being the Court of Small Causes constituted under the Act. That section also says that the expression "Registrar" includes a Deputy Registrar. This definition standing by itself does not say that the Registrar is for any purposes to be considered to be a Court of Small Causes. Next, he refers me to Section 13 of the aforesaid Act, which deals with the appointment of the Registrar. That section describes the Registrar to be the chief ministerial officer of the court. Learned advocate points out that, by Section 13 of the aforesaid Act, the Registrar is given no judicial powers. Next, he refers me to Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, which provides that the Local Government may invest the Registrar with the powers of a Judge under this Act for the trial of suits in which the amount or value of the subject-matter does not exceed twenty rupees. In the explanation to this section it is stated that, for the purposes of this section, an application for possession u/s 41 shall be deemed to be a suit. Learned advocate contends that the present application by the Plaintiffs, being an application u/s 41 of the Act, it would be a suit u/s 14, if the value of the subject-matter did not exceed twenty rupees. Learned advocate contends that the present application by the Plaintiffs, being an application u/s 41 of the Act, it would be a suit u/s 14, if the value of the subject-matter did not exceed twenty rupees. He relies strongly on the words "for the "purposes of this section" which appear in Section 14 and he contends that an application for possession u/s 41 is not' a suit for all purposes, but only for the purpose of Section 14, that is to say, for the purpose of an application where the subject-matter does not exceed twenty rupees. Admittedly, in the present case, the subject-matter is far in excess of twenty rupees and learned advocate contends that the application for ejectment cannot, therefore, be deemed to be a suit. He very fairly draws my attention also to Section 9(1)(aa) of the Act, which says that the High Court may, from time to time, by rules having the force of law, empower the Registrar to hear and dispose of undefended suits and interlocutory applications or matters. His contention is that the Registrar is empowered to hear undefended suits and not undefended applications u/s 41 of the Act. He argues that, although an application u/s 41 may be treated as a suit by virtue of the provisions of Section 14, it can only be so treated for the limited purposes mentioned in that section and, therefore, an application for ejectment with respect to property above twenty rupees in value, if undefended, cannot be treated as an undefended suit within the meaning of Section 9(1)(aa) of the Act and, therefore, the Registrar has no jurisdiction to try the application. He next draws my attention to Rule 107 framed by this High Court. That rule is in the following terms: Application u/s 41 of the Act shall be in the form of a plaint in which the Applicant shall be the Plaintiff and the occupant the Defendant, and the matter shall then be treated as a suit. For the purpose of ascertaining the value of the suit the annual value of the property in respect of which the claim is made shall be deemed to be the value of such property, and such annual value shall be stated in the plaint. 3. For the purpose of ascertaining the value of the suit the annual value of the property in respect of which the claim is made shall be deemed to be the value of such property, and such annual value shall be stated in the plaint. 3. Learned advocate for the Petitioner contends that, although at first sight the rule may appear to mean that it converts an application u/s 41 into a suit for all purposes, as a matter of fact it does not do so. The rule according to him merely lays down that an application u/s 41 for ejectment should be treated as a suit so far as procedure only is concerned. In this connection, he refers me to the case of Tyeb Beg Mahomed v. Allibhai Mangalji ILR (1906) Bom. 45, where it was held that proceedings under Chap. VII are not suits and orders passed therein are not decrees. This view was taken in connection with an application for a new trial, which the Bombay High Court held would lie only against a decree passed, in a suit. Now, if this decision could be applied in this province, then undoubtedly the view taken by learned advocate for the Petitioner would have to be sustained. Learned advocate for the opposite parties, however, points out that this decision has no application to Calcutta, because there is no such rule as Rule 107 framed with respect to the Small Cause Court at Bombay. In the absence of such a rule, the Bombay decision was passed. He contends that, by virtue of Rule 107, the Registrar has got powers to determine this undefended application u/s 41 of the aforesaid Act and he contends that Rule 107 is not restricted to questions of procedure only. After considering this rule, I am of opinion that the contention urged on behalf of the opposite parties should be accepted. The rule clearly lays down that the application shall be treated as a suit. After those words the rule goes on to say For the purpose of ascertaining the value "of the suit the annual value of the property, etc.". The rule, therefore, does not limit matters to questions of procedure only as was suggested by learned advocate for the Petitioner. As I read the rule, it provides that the application shall be treated as a suit in respect of all matters. The rule, therefore, does not limit matters to questions of procedure only as was suggested by learned advocate for the Petitioner. As I read the rule, it provides that the application shall be treated as a suit in respect of all matters. That being so, if it is not defended, it becomes an undefended suit within the meaning of Section 9(1)(aa) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. I hold, therefore, that the Registrar had jurisdiction to deal with this application u/s 41 of the aforesaid Act and decree the suit ex parte in default of the appearance of the Defendant. 4. The nest question for decision is whether the Registrar's decision refusing to set aside the ex parte decree can be interfered with by this Court in revision. No evidence has been recorded and the Court of Small Causes is not bound to record evidence; but it is quite clear from the record of the Registrar that he has considered the evidence placed before him and he has come to the conclusion that the summons was duly served. The peon who served the summons was examined and the return of service shows that the writ was affixed on the outer door of the premises occupied by the Defendant in her presence on her refusal to sign the return. The petition of the Petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree is to some extent vague. She says that she was informed of the decree, but does not disclose in the petition the name of the person who informed her. This seems very suspicious. In any case, I am of opinion that there were materials before the Registrar upon which he could legitimately base his conclusion that there had been due service of summons. In revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such a decision cannot be interfered with. 5. I, accordingly, discharge this Rule with costs.