Judgment :- This is a civil revision petition filed under section 115, Civil Proce-dure Code, against the order made by the Bench of the Court of Small Causes in N. T. A. No. 4 of 1981. The learned III Judge and the IV Judge, Court of Small Causes constituted the Bench. The New Trial Application No. 4 of 1981 was filed against the Judgment and decree in Suit No. 122 of 1980 rendered by the learned III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras on 27th day of November, 1980 holding that the suit is not maintainable since section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act had not been satisfied and also holding that the accountant-defendant is not liable to pay the value of the alleged shortage of 69 tumblers and six cups. The said New Trial Application had been preferred under section 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act (XV of 1882), wherein the Bench of the Small Causes Court allowed the application. It is against that order pronounced by the Bench in the New . Trial Application, the defendant has come forward with this revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The point for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether there is any error of jurisdiction or any other error as contemplated under the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that has been committed by the lower Court in pronouncing the judgment in N. T. A. No. 4 of 1981. 3. Even before actually dealing with the merits of this civil revision petition, it is better to note the provisions under which the revision lies as against the order pronounced by the Bench of the Court of Small Causes in N. T. A. No. 4 of 1981. The new trial contested cases are actually entertained by the Presidency Small Causes Court under the provisions of section 38 of the Act XV of 1882. The new trial contested cases are actually entertained by the Presidency Small Causes Court under the provisions of section 38 of the Act XV of 1882. It reads as follows: "New trial of contested cases :Where a suit has been contested, the Small Causes Court may, on the application of either party, made within eighty days from the date of the decree or order in the suit (not being a decree passed under section 522 of the Code Civil Procedure) order a new trial to be held, or alter, set aside or reverse the decree or order, upon such terms as it thinks reasonable, and may, in the meantime, stay the proceedings. Explanation : — Every suit shall be deemed to be contested in which the decree is made otherwise than by consent of or in default of appearance by the defendant." As against the order in the new trial application entertained by the Bench of the Court of Small Causes in the Presidency Town, a revision only is available to the aggrieved party Section 39 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act (XV of 1882) reads as fallows: "Removal of certain causes into High Court. — -(1) In any suit instituted in a Small Causes Court in which the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds the sum of one thousand rupees, the defendant or any one of the defendants may, before the day fixed by the summons for the appearance of the defendant or within eight days after the service of the summons on him, whichever period shall last expire, apply ex parte on an affidavit setting forth the facts on which he relies for his defence to a Judge of the, High Court for an order removing the cause into the High Court. (2) Unless the Judge is of the opinion that the application has been made solely for the purpose of delay, the applicant shall be entitled to such order as of right: Provided that the removel directed by such order shall, unless the Judge otherwise directs, be conditional upon the applicant giving security, to the approval of the Judge. within a reasonable time to be prescribed in the order for the payment of the amount claimed and of the costs which may become payable by him to the plaintiff in respect of the said suit. within a reasonable time to be prescribed in the order for the payment of the amount claimed and of the costs which may become payable by him to the plaintiff in respect of the said suit. (3) If the applicant fail or neglect to complete the required security (if any) within the prescribed time (if any) the said order shall be discharged and the suit shall proceed in the Small Causes Court as if such order had been made. (4) If the plaintiff in any case which has been removed under this section into the High Court has abandoned a portion of his claim in order to be able to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court, he shall be permitted to revive the portion of his claim so abandoned“. It is under the Civil Procedure Code, where there is a provision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, that a revision petition can be filed if there is no specific provision available in any enactment conferring appeal remedy for the aggrieved party. In the Presidency Small Causes Court Act (XV of 1882), there is no provision for appeal or revision as against the order pronounced by the Bench of the Court of Small Causes, exercising its power under section 38 of the Act by the aggrieved party. Further the nature of the new trial application itself is not in the nature of the appeal, but it is only a revision. It has been so held in many decision of this Court as well as in Madras Cine Service v. Shyamala Pictures (P) Ltd.1. Therefore, when a Bench of the Court of Small Causes itself if entertaining an appliction against the judgment of one of its Courts and exercising only its jurisdiction, which is more or less of the nature of revisional powers, it is needless to say that further proceedings that can be entertained by the High Court under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, can only be on a question of any error or infirmity that is contemplated by the said section of the procedural law of the land. 4. 4. It is also relevant in this connection to note that under section 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act (XV of 1882), no appeal power is conferred on the Bench of the said Court entertaining applications under the said provision and as such a person against whom an order is passed by the said Bench and who is aggrieved in pursuance thereof, may apply to the High Court for revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code. It has been so held by this Court as early as in O. M. Nagoor Meeran Sahib v. Sookulal Sowcar2. In the said decision, it has been clearly held that the High Court can exercise a revisional jurisdiction over the Presidency Small Causes Court. Thus we find that the jurisdiction under section 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act is not of appeal nature and a person against whom an order is made is not bound to apply to the Full Bench of the Presidency Small Causes Court for new trial before invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. For arriving at the above decision this Court had followed the decisions raperted in Sadasook Gambir Chund v. Kannayya3 and Srinivasa Charlu v. Balaji Rau4. Thus, it is seen that this civil revision petition before this Court under disposal, is one which is entertainable under section 115, Civil Procedure Code. 5. In this regard, it is also better to be enlighten ourselves with the analogous provisions available in the Provincial Small Causes Court Act (IX of 1887). It is under section 25 of the said enactment, the revision of the decree and orders of the Court of Small Causes are dealt with. It is provided under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act (IX of 1887) that 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 order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. Thus it is only under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act (IX of 1887) that a revision lies as againt the order of the Court of Small Causes which Court’s jurisdiction is dealt with under section 15 of the said enactment which reads as follows: "Cognizance of suits by Court of Small Causes: — (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the second schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. (2) Subject 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 Causes, (3) Subject as aforesaid, the State Government may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the order". Bearing in mind the above provisions of law of the two enectments it is seen that when a person is aggrieved in so far as the Presidency Small Causes Court Act is concerned, the highest forum of the State which he has to approach is through the provisions of the procedural law of the land, namely, section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the other who is aggrieved by an order of the Court which is describied as Provincial Small Causes Court as per the provisions of Act IX of 1887 has to get his redressal of his grievance under the provisions of section 25 of the Act IX of 1887. This distinction has to be borne in mind in order to appreciate the points that may be arising under both the enactments, because so far as the Presidency Small Causes Court Act is concerned, the aggrieved party is heard in its revisional powers under section 38 by a Bench consisting of two Judges of the very same Court and thereafter once when the aggrieved party is allowed to come by way of revision to this Court under the said enactment whereas it is not so under section 25 of the provincial Small Causes Court Act (IX of 1887). Asa matter of fact, the above principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury1. The said decision has to be implicitly followed by this Court in its proceedings while dealing with the revision arising under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act (IX of 1887). 6. Bearing the above principles in mind, when the impugned order is scrutinised, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the revision petition. None of the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner can be upheld. A perusal of the revisional order in N. T. A No. 4 of 1981 would disclose that all the formalities had been upheld as a Court exercising jurisdiction under section 38 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act (XV of 1882) by the lower Court and there is no infirmity that could be found as contemplated under the provisions of section 115, Civil Procedure Code. There is no merit in the civil revision petition and hence it is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, in the circumstances without costs. Three months’ time is granted to the revision petitioner as prayed for payment from today.