V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) SHE question in this revision is whether an appeal lies when a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes is partly tried by such Court and subsequently tried by a. court which has not the small cause powers because the first Judge is transferred Sec. 35 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act deals with such a situation and reads as under:- continuance of proceedings of abolished Courts.-35 Where a Court of Small Causes or a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes has from any cause ceased to have jurisdiction with respect to any case any proceeding in relation to the case whether before or after decree which if the Court had not ceased to have jurisdiction might have been had therein may be had in the Court which if the suit out of which the proceeding has arisen were about to be instituted would have jurisdiction to try the suit. (2) Nothing in this section applies to cases for which special provision is made in the Code of Civil Procedure as extended to Courts of Small Causes or in any other enactment for the time being in forcebefore the interpretation to be put on this section is considered I would like to notice certain points. Chapter II of the Provincial Small Causes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for the constitution of Courts of Small Causes. Chapter III of the Act deals with jurisdiction of such Courts. Sec. 15 provides that a Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule Sub-sec. (2) provides: (2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causessec. 16 then provides as follows:-16 Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other enectment for the time being in force a suit cognisable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable. Sec. 16 uses the words Save as expressly provided by this Act. Sec. 16 uses the words Save as expressly provided by this Act. If there is such an express provision a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes can be tried by another Court. Sec. 24 provides appeals from certain orders of Courts of Small Causes. Before this section applies the order must be passed by a Court of Small Causes and not by a Court trying a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes but not having the powers of such a Court. Sec 27 provides:27 Save as provided by this Act a decree or order made under the foregoing provisions of this Act by a Court of Small Causes shall be final. It is only a decree or order made by a Court of Small Causes which is final and non-appealable. A decree passed by Court which is not a Court of Small Causes but which under the powers given by Act passes it in a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes does not fall under sec. 27. Such a decree or order would be appealable under the Civil Procedure Code if appealable under the Code. Now if we turn to sec. 35 that section deals with continuance of proceedings of abolished Courts That section provides that where a court of Small Causes is abolished the proceedings shall continue in a Court having ordinary jurisdiction. That Court therefore would be a Court having ordinary jurisdiction but empowered by sec. 35 to try suits cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and sec 35 is therefore an express provision contemplated by sec. 16 of the Act. When that happens the Court hearing the suit subsequently would not be a Civil Court of ordinary jurisdiction and sec. 24 will have no application to an order passed by such a Court nor would sec. 27 apply. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in Shankerbhai and others v. Somabhai and another I. L. R. 25 Bombay 417 but that is not a case under sec. 35 of the Act. He also relies on A. I. R. 1935 Madras 919 Ramaswami v. Firm Ki Karu but in that case secs. 24 15 and 27 have not been considered. There is another Madras ruling in Kamalathammal v. Harihara A. I. R. 1941 Madras 103. There it is observed:sec. 35 of the Act. He also relies on A. I. R. 1935 Madras 919 Ramaswami v. Firm Ki Karu but in that case secs. 24 15 and 27 have not been considered. There is another Madras ruling in Kamalathammal v. Harihara A. I. R. 1941 Madras 103. There it is observed:sec. 35 does not say that the Court which is empowered thereunder to entertain proceeding owing to a small cause Court ceasing to have jurisdiction with reference to the case Should have jurisdiction to try the suit as a Court of Small Causes. It is Sufficient if it has jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Judge Patanjali Sastri also referred to the Madras decision in A. I. R. 1935 Madras 919 and made the following observations:sec. 35 provides not only for the continuance of pending proceedings in the same Court when that Courts jurisdiction is changed but also for their continuance in a different Court on the abolition of the original Court. Apart from this if as the learned Judge thinks there is nothing in sec. 35 to turn a small cause suit into an original suit it is difficult to see anything in it to turn a civil Court into a Court of Small Causes. so as to attract the application of sec. 27 barring appeals in respect of a decree or order made by a Court of Small Causes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . the Pull Bench decision in 54 All. 171 held that a suit instituted as a Small Cause suit If tried as an original suit in the circumstances mentioned in sec. 35 when there was no other Judge-in the local area with adequate small cause powers to try it as a small cause suit should be regard as an original suit and the decree passed in it would be appealable. The learned Judge agreed with the Full Bench view in Bhagwati Pande v. Badri Pande I. L R. 54 Allahabad 171 that a suit instituted as a small cause suit if tried as an original suit in the circumstances mentioned in sec. 35 when the no other Judge in the local area with adequate small cause powers to try it as a small cause suit should be regarded as an original suit and the decree passed in it would be appealable. 35 when the no other Judge in the local area with adequate small cause powers to try it as a small cause suit should be regarded as an original suit and the decree passed in it would be appealable. I also agree with this view and hold that sec. 27 of the Act does not operate in the circumstances of the case to bar an appeal. I therefore decline to interfere in revision in this matter. Application dismissed. .