( 1 ) THIS is a, plaintiff's revision petition arising out of the order dated 9th april, 1976 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hubli, in S. C. Suit No 170 ol 1974. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff is a wholesale dealer in bangles carrying on business at Hubli and according to him, maintaining accounts regularly. It is alleged by him that the respondent herein who was the defendant in the small Cause suit is carrying on business at Dharwar as a retail bangle merchant and on, that account, had opened, khata with the petitioner who as earlier stated is a whole-sale merchant in bangles. The petitioner claimed in the said Small Cause Suit a sum of Rs. 526-81p as khata balance. H elso claimed interest at 18% on the said amount as per trade usage and also according to the provision of the Sale of Goods Act. It was the case of the petitioner in the court below that in spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay ther amount and therefore the suit had to be filed,. Resisting the suit clam, the defendant denied that he had, any transaction with the petitioner plaintiff. He further averred in his written statement that he never purchased bangles from the petitioner-plaintiff. He denied his liability towards the claim. On the above pleadings, the learned Civil Judge framed the following five issues: 1. Whether Plff. proves that deft. opened Khata in his shop purchased bangles on credit. 2. Whether plff. proves that the deft, is due in a sum of Rs. 529-81 3 Whether the plff. is entitled to interest claimed. 4 Whether the suit is in time? 5 What order or decree? on all the above issues, the learned Civil Judge found against the plaintiff on appreciating the evidence placed before him by the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondent-defendant. In the result, the learned Civii Judge dismissed the suit having regard to his finding on issue No. 1. ( 3 ) IN this revision petition, the grounds urged by the revision petitioner do not call for interference under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, except that assertion that the Court below has erred in law, no specific ground is made out for this court to hold that the, judgment and decree of the Court below is n,ot in accordance with law. It is onh fair that Mr. In fact, except that assertion that the Court below has erred in law, no specific ground is made out for this court to hold that the, judgment and decree of the Court below is n,ot in accordance with law. It is onh fair that Mr. K. S. Savanur learned counsc did no really argue the case on facts. He has howe ver placed strong reliance on I. A. No. 1 which is filed along with the revision petition. I. A. No. 1 is filed under Order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure The prayer portion is as follows:-"for the facts and reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit that the Bill Book for the period from 15-8-1972 to 18-7-1973 which contains Receipt No- 3 may be accepted by way of additional evidence in the top noted C. R. Petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C. P. Code in the interest of justice. "in other words, the object of I. A. No. 1 is that the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause courts Act, should receive additional evidence and dispose of the case before it on the basis of such additional evidence. This cannot be acceded to. It is well settled, principle of law that revisional jurisdiction is distinct from appellate jurisdiction. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised within the meaning and scope of Section 115.-Similarly, High Court's revisional jurisdiction under other enactments or statutes, one has to look at the language contained in the statute conferring the power of revision on the High Court. S. 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act reads as follows:"18. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes:- the High Court, 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 orders with respect thereto, as it thinks fit. "this section is. identical in language or is in parimateria with S. 25 of the provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Considering S. 25 of the said Act, chief Justice Beaumont of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Bell co. , Ltd. , v. Woman Hemraj (AIR 1938 Bom. "this section is. identical in language or is in parimateria with S. 25 of the provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Considering S. 25 of the said Act, chief Justice Beaumont of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Bell co. , Ltd. , v. Woman Hemraj (AIR 1938 Bom. 223) has stated: -"in my opinion that section ought not to be constirued as giving the parties a right of appeal on points of law. The object of S. 25 is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarraige of justice, that the decision was given according to law. The section does not enumerate the cases in which the Court may interfere in revision, as does, S. 115, Civil P. C. , and I certainly do not propose to attempt an exhaustive definition of the circumstances which may justify such interference; but instances which readily occur to the mind are cases in which the Court which made the order had no jurisdiction, or in which the Court has based its decision on evidence which should not have, been admitted, or cases where the unsuccessful party has not been given a proper ooportunity of being heard, or the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong shoulders. Wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law, then the Court can interfere. But, in my opinion, the Court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the Judge who heard the case, may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at. "similarly, our Supreme Court had occasion to consider S. 35 of the Delhi and ajmer Rent (Control) Act (38 of 1952) which conferred revisional jurisdiction on the High Court. In the case of Ran Shankar v. Raogiridhar Lal (AIR. "similarly, our Supreme Court had occasion to consider S. 35 of the Delhi and ajmer Rent (Control) Act (38 of 1952) which conferred revisional jurisdiction on the High Court. In the case of Ran Shankar v. Raogiridhar Lal (AIR. 1963 SC 698, 701) the Supreme Court has held that S. 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent (Control) act is almost the same as Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts act; and after referring to the varoius decisions of the High Courts in India on such provisions conferring -revisional jurisdiction, Chief Justice Beau, mont's interpretation of Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been cited with approval and the passage extracted by me from the bombay decision above, was approved by the Supreme Court in the follow ing terms :- this observation has our full concurrence ). " however, Sri K. S. Savanur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed great reliance and drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Ramachandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatrayae Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1 . In that case, the; Supreme Court was chiefly concerned, with the scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the orders made by the High Court in revision under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rates Control Act, 1947. The question essentially involved in that case was whether the order dismissing the revision petition by the High court merged with the oder of the Appellate Court below. While broadly, discussing the nature of appellate and revisional powers, the Supreme court stated as follows:-"the right of appeal is one of entering a superior Court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the Court below. Two things which are required to constitute appellate jurisdiction are the existence of the relation of superior and inferior Court and the power on the former to review decisions of the latter. When the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional side it is done because it is a superior Court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error of the Court below. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior Court. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior Court. It is only one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the Statute; basically and fundamenlally it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is being invoked and exercised in a wider and larger sense. "it is from this observation, that Sri Savanur wants to derive support and has submitted that this Court is in fact an appellate Court being superior court to the court below, and therefore, should have no hesitation to receive additional evidence and decide the case. But this is not the correct view. As is clear from the observation of the Supreme Court reproduced above the context in which that observation was made was only to describe distinction that exists between an inferior Court and a superior Court in. the exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction by the superior Court and that observation was not made to take away the difference that essentially exists between an appeal and a revision and this has been made clear by the very first sentence in paragraph 6 at page 4 which reads as follows;"now when the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional side it is done because it is a superior Court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error of the Court below. "in this view of the matter, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under s. 18 of the Karnataka, Small Cause Courtis Act, 1964, cannot convert itself into an Appellate Court and receive additional evidence as prayed for in I. A. No. I in this revision petition. ( 4 ) I am supported in my above view by the decision of Justice govinda Menon in the case of The Governor-General in Council v. Khadi Mandali ( AIR 1950 Mad. 438 ). That was a case which came before the High court under Section 115 of the C. P. C. and arose on the question of receiving additional evidence in a Civil Misc. Petition filed in those procee dings. In the said Civil Misc. 438 ). That was a case which came before the High court under Section 115 of the C. P. C. and arose on the question of receiving additional evidence in a Civil Misc. Petition filed in those procee dings. In the said Civil Misc. Petition, the learned Judge observed thus:-"c. M. P. No. 7885 of 1949: this is a petition for the admission of fresh documents in the revision petition as addtional evidence. No authority has been shown to me that the entire provisions of Or. 41 CPC. and especially Or. 41 R. 27 are applicable to the civil revision petitions under the Provincial small Cause Courts Act. I do. not wish to base my decision on that point alone, as there are no justifying circumstances which would allow me even if Or. 41, R. 27 applies to admit additional evidence in a civil revision petition. This civil Miscellaneous petition is therefore dismissed. "thus it is clearly seen that whatever may be the circumstances, this Court exercising re visional jurisdiction, cannot convert itself into a Court of appeal and take, support from Order 41 Rule 27 and receive additional evidence. ( 5 ) SRI Savanur further contended that the additional evidence sought to be introduced in, this Court was misplaced at the time of the trial of the suit in question in the Court below and soon after discovery, having no other remedy, the petitioner approached this Court by this revision petition and with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. and further that the evidence now discovered by him, clinches the case in his favour. ( 6 ) FOR such contingencies, there are ample provisions in the Code of civil Procedure, for an appropriate remedy in the appropriate forum. It is open to the revision petitioner to avail of such remedy if he is so adrvised. It should not be considered as any observation made regarding the merit of the evidence which the revision petitioner sought to produce before this Court. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed and also la. No. 1. ( 8 ) IN the cicumstataces, no order as to costs. --- *** --- .