JUDGMENT Mithan Lal, J. - The only point in this Civil Revision is whether the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, could hear the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. 2. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 713-14-0 which was decreed by the Judge Small Cause Court. A revision against that order was filed in the court of the District Judge, Kanpur, who transferred the revision to the court of the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge dismissed the revision by an order dated llth October 1958. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 3. It has been contended by Sri B.R. Avasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the revision because under the amended provisions of Section 25 Provincial small Cause Court Act the revision could only be heard by the District Judge. His further contention is that under Section 8 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act mere appointment of an Additional District Judge at Kanpur could not confer any jurisdiction on him to hear the revision. What was necessary was that the power to hear revisions should have been assigned to him by the District Judge as required by sub-sec. (2) of that section. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. 4. By amendment of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act the expression `High Court' has been substituted by the expression `District Judge' and the amended section is as follows :- "The District Judge for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit." The first question which arises in this behalf is what is the meaning of the expression `District Judge' and whether that expression includes an Additional District Judge. This expression has not been defined either in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act or the C.P.C. or in the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. This expression has not been defined either in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act or the C.P.C. or in the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. In the U.P. General Clauses Act `District Judge' has been defined as the "Judge of a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, but shall not include a High Court in the exercise of its ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction." In the Code of Civil Procedure the definition of `District' is "the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court or original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a District Court)" while the expression `Judge' has been defined as meaning "presiding officer of a Civil Court." Neither by the definition of the `District Judge' given in the General Clauses Act nor the aforesaid two definitions of `District' and `Judge' in the Code of Civil Procedure it can be inferred that the word `District Judge' is confined only to that person who works as a District Judge and would not include an Additional District Judge who has been posted to the district. 5. In Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act classes of courts have been given in Section 3, namely the court of the District Judge, the court of the Additional Judge, the court of the Civil Judge and the court of the Munsif. The State Government has been given the power to alter the number of District Judge, Civil Judges and Munsifs now fixed under Section 4 of that Act. A separate provision has been made in Section 8 of that Act which provides as follows: "8(1) When the business pending before any District Judge requires the aid of Additional Judges for its speedy disposal, the (State) may (having consulted) the High Court appoint such Additional Judges as may be requisite. (2) Additional Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to them, and, in the discharge of those functions. they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge." The contention of Sri Avasthi is that Additional District Judges may be appointed under sub-sec. (1) but that sub-section does not confer any power on the Additional District Judges. Whatever power is conferred on the Additional Judges is only by assignment by the District Judge, be it for performing the function of disposal of cases or other functions. (1) but that sub-section does not confer any power on the Additional District Judges. Whatever power is conferred on the Additional Judges is only by assignment by the District Judge, be it for performing the function of disposal of cases or other functions. There is nothing on record to show the wordings of the notification appointing the particular Additional District Judge to the District of Kanpur, nor is it known as to whether the District Judge, Kanpur did or did not pass any orders under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 8. But presuming that such orders were not passed the Additional District Judge, who has been appointed to a District for speedy disposal of cases, would still be competent to hear cases as transferred to him by the District Judge in exercise of the powers conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure. The mere appointment of an Additional Judge for speedy disposal of cases would entitle him to hear any case which has been transferred by the District Judge, if an order of transfer has been made. It does not appear necessary that the District Judge should pass any separate order for assigning any duty for disposal of cases. In fact for the purposes of sub-sec. (2) of Section 8 whenever an Additional Judge is appointed because of the heavy work in the district, he will be entitled to dispose of the cases which have been transferred to him by the District Judge without any separate order of assignment. The order of transfer of a case or cases by the District Judge would itself entitle the Additional Judge to hear and dispose of the case or cases transferred to his file. This may itself be called an assignment in the sense that a particular case or cases have been assigned to him for disposal and the order of transfer would mean assignment of the function for disposal of that particular case or cases to the Additional District Judge. What appears to me the purpose of sub-sec. (2) is that as the District Judge have to perform administrative functions besides the judicial functions and in case a District Judge desires to assign some of the administrative functions, in that case he has to make an order assigning such functions to the Additional District Judge under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 8. (2) is that as the District Judge have to perform administrative functions besides the judicial functions and in case a District Judge desires to assign some of the administrative functions, in that case he has to make an order assigning such functions to the Additional District Judge under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 8. There are two cases of this Court Mutasaddi Lal v. Mule Mal, 34 All. 205 : 9 ALJ 95 and Ram Charan v. Mewa Ram, 43 All. 409 : 19 ALJ 192 in which it was held that the Additional District Judge has all the powers of the District Judge in respect of the cases assigned to him by the District Judge and such an Additional District Judge is competent to hear those cases. Both the cases relate to criminal matters. There it was held that transfer of cases amounted to assignment of the function of hearing and disposing of the cases as the District Judge had the power to transfer such cases to the Addl. District Judge. There are also authorities on the land acquisition matters and also under Section 92, C.P.C. in which it has been held that the cases under the said provisions could be heard by the Additional District Judges to whom the cases were transferred. It is hardly necessary to make any reference to those authorities because the present case is one under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. I may, however, refer to the authority of Lila Mahton v. Sheo Govind Singh, AIR 1956 Patna 108 in which a Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that an Additional District Judge is a Judge of such principal of Civil Court as contemplated by Section 3 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act. A reference may also be made to the authority of G. C. Bezbarua v. State of Assam and others, A.I.R. 1954 Assam 161 in which a Division Bench of the Assam High Court held that within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act an Additional Judge would be included in the term `District Judge.' That was a case in which, in the constitution of the Industrial Tribunal, a District Judge had to be appointed but in place of the District Judge an Additional District Judge had been appointed. The Bench which decided that case held that the appointment was valid as the term District Judge included the term Additional District Judge. 6. It will thus appear that under the Cr. P. C. under the Land Acquisition Act, under the Provisions of Section 92 of the C.P.C. and under the Industrial Disputes Act wherever the word `District Judge' has been used it has been held to include an Additional District Judge. Besides whenever an Additional District Judge has been appointed under Sec. 8(1) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act for the speedy disposal of cases and the cases have been transferred to him the very order of appointment coupled with the order of transfer of cases entitles such Additional District Judges to dispose of cases transferred to them. It cannot be said that any separate order of assignment of functions of disposing of cases was necessary to be passed. The Additional District Judge, Kanpur, was, therefore, competent to hear and dispose of revisions under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act transferred to his Court by the District Judge. The revision has, therefore, no force and fails. It is hereby dismissed with costs.