ORDER This application is directed against an order dated 5.2.90 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, in Suit No. 4710/83 disposing of an application for substitution which bad been filed on behalf of the defendant in a proceeding under s. 36 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts of the case out of which this application arises in brief are as follows: 2. The opposite party in the instant application filed an application under s. 41 of the Act for an order for khas possession of the suit room after evicting the petitioner herein therefrom. The proceeding was uncontested and the learned Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, passed a decree on July 29, 1983, fixing September 8, 1983, for delivery of possession. 3. After the passing of the said order, the present petitioner filed an application under s. 36 of the Act praying for a new trial, as he had not been able to defend the proceeding. The said application was taken up for hearing on July 31,1984, by a Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, constituted for the said purpose The said application under s. 36 of the Act was rejected by the Full Bench upon holding that even against an order of the Registrar no new trial application would lie unless the proceeding was contested. During the pendency of the said application under s. 36 of the Act the sole plaintiff died and an application for substitution was made. Keeping the said application for substitution alive, the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes dismissed the said application under s. 36 of the Act as misconceived. Subsequently, although, the application under s. 41 of the Act had been finally disposed of and the application under s. 36 of the Act summarily rejected, the application for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff was taken up for hearing by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, Court of Small Causes, along with an application under s.5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Judge came to a finding that, inasmuch as a proceeding under s. 41 of the Act was not a suit, the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, had no jurisdiction to deal with the same. The learned Judge came to a finding that, inasmuch as a proceeding under s. 41 of the Act was not a suit, the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, had no jurisdiction to deal with the same. According to the learned Judge, the decree or order as passed on July 29, 1983, by the Registrar is a mere nullity. Relying on certain decisions cited before him the learned Judge declared the aforesaid order dated July 29, 1983, to be a nullity having no binding effect. It is against the aforesaid order of the learned trial Judge that this revisional application has been filed by one of the heirs of the original plaintiff in Suit No.4710/83. 4 On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted by Mr. Trivedi that the learned lower court was wrong in holding that the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, had no jurisdiction in entertaining the proceeding under s. 41 of the Act. He also submitted that the leaned court was wrong in declaring the order passed in Suit No, 4710/83 to be a nullity. He submitted that Rules have been framed by this Court for giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Rule 107 of the aforesaid Rules makes it clear that an application under s. 41 of the Act is to be in the form of a plaint in which the applicant shall be the plaintiff and the occupant shall be the defendant and the matter is then to be treated as a suit. Mr. Trivedi also referred to s.9(1)(aa) of the Act. Section 9(1)(aa) provides 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. It was also contended by Mr. Trivedi that by Rule 57 of the aforesaid Rules the Registrar had been empowered to hear undefended applications under s. 41 of the Act. Rule 57 of the Presideney Small Cause Courts Rules (Calcutta) reads as follows :- "Uncontested cases relating to minors or persons of unsound mind and all questions of substitution and of the liability of individuals as partners in respect of decrees made against a firm in the firm's name shall be dealt with by a Judge. Rule 57 of the Presideney Small Cause Courts Rules (Calcutta) reads as follows :- "Uncontested cases relating to minors or persons of unsound mind and all questions of substitution and of the liability of individuals as partners in respect of decrees made against a firm in the firm's name shall be dealt with by a Judge. All other uncontested cases including ejectment and claim cases shall be dealt with by the Registrar." According to Mr, Trivedi, Rule 57 makes it very clear that the Registrar had the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of an application under s. 41 of the Act provided the same was uncontested and the learned court below erred in arriving at the conclusion that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to do so. 5 Mr. Arora, learned Advocate for the opposite party, attempted to justify the order passed by the court below. It was submitted by him that, inasmuch as a proceeding under s. 41 of the Act is not a suit, the learned Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for ejectment against the opposite party. It was also submitted by him that the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to hear matters relating to ejectment had been ousted by 'the amendment to the City Civil Court Act It was also his case that the Registrar of the Court of Small Cause at Calcutta had been empowered by the Rules to hear and decide only certain specific kinds of cases, as referred to in Rule 62 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 62 of the said Rules reads as follows :- "Decree by default.- In a suit for damages or for a liquidated demand, if the allegations contained in the plaint are sufficient, the Registrar may after the time allowed for entering an appearance, subject to Rule 65. Rule 62 of the said Rules reads as follows :- "Decree by default.- In a suit for damages or for a liquidated demand, if the allegations contained in the plaint are sufficient, the Registrar may after the time allowed for entering an appearance, subject to Rule 65. record a decree by default against the defendant or where there are several defendants, against every defendant served with the writ or summons who has failed to enter an appearance, and the plain1iff may obtain execution against every such defendant without prejudice to his right to proceed with the action against every other defendant: Provided always that no such decree by default shall be recorded against any defendant upon a plaint wherein any documents are mentioned, unless such documents have been filed in Court with the plaint or are produced before the Registrar at the time of his recording a decree by default." 6. In support of his contention Mr. Arora also referred to s.19(g) of the Act and submitted that by virtue of the said provision the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to hear applications under s. 41 of the Act had been ousted. He also submitted that s. 41 had been rendered redundant by virtue of the subsequent amendment to City Civil Court Act. Mr, Arora also relied on a decision of this Court reported in 75 CWN 314, in Support of his contention that a proceeding under s. 41 of the Act was not a suit. 7. Having considered the submissions of the respective parries, I do not find any substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the opposite party. Section 9 of the Act vests the High Court with powers to regulate the procedure and practice of the Small Cause Court Section 9(1)(a) provides that the High Court may, from time to time, by rules having the force of law, prescribe the procedure to be followed and the practice to be observed by the Small Cause Court either in supervision of or in addition to any provisions which were prescribed with respect to the procedure or practice of the Small Cause Court on or before the 31st day of December, 1894, in or under the Act or any other enactment for the ,time being in force. Section 9(1)(aa) provides that the High Court may by rules having the force of law empower the Registrar to hear and dispose of undefended suits and interlocutory applications or matters. Rule 57 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Rules (Calcutta), framed under the aforesaid provision, provides that uncontested cases relating to minors or persons of unsound mind and all questions of substitution and of the liability of individuals as partners in respect of decrees made against a firm in the film's name shall be dealt with by a Judge. All other uncontested eases including ejectment and claim cases shall be dealt with by the Registrar (The emphasis is mine). 8. It is, therefore, obvious that under Rule 57 of the aforesaid Rules, the Registrar, Small Cause Court, has the jurisdiction to hear and decide undefended cases relating to ejectment under ss. 41 and 43 of the Act. Rule 62, as referred to by the learned counsel for the opposite party, concerns suits for damages or for liquidated demands and has no application to the facts of the instant case. as the instant case relates to application under s. 41 of the Act which enables the Small Cause Court to direct the occupant of a premises to show cause as to why he should not be compelled to deliver up the property in question. The further submission of Mr. Arora, that the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under s. 41 of the Act stood ousted with the amendment of the City Civil Court Act, is also without substance as the said amendment has not touched the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under s. 41 of the Act. The decision cited by Mr. Arora does not also come to his assistance in support of his contention. 9. I am fortified in my view by a decision cited by Mr. Tewari reported in ILR (1) Col. 1950, page 333 (Charubala Das v Radheshyam Das). It was held in the said case that Rule 107. framed by this court under s.9(1)(aa) of the Act, is not limited to matters of procedure but provides that an application for possession of immovable property under s. 41 of the Act is to be treated as a suit in all its ways. It was held in the said case that Rule 107. framed by this court under s.9(1)(aa) of the Act, is not limited to matters of procedure but provides that an application for possession of immovable property under s. 41 of the Act is to be treated as a suit in all its ways. It has also been held in that case that a proceet1ing on such an application, if not defended, becomes an undefended suit, within the meaning of s. 9(1)(aa), giving the Registrar jurisdiction to deal with it and pass an ex parte decree in default of appearance by the defendant. 10. The Court below, in my view, was entirely wrong in holding that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain or deal with an application under s. 41 of the Act. The court below apparently did not take into consideration the provisions of s. 9(1)(aa) of the Act and/or r. 57 framed thereunder which specifically empowers the Registrar to hear such undefended applications under s. 41 of the Act. The court below also appears to have overlooked the provisions of r. 107 which provides that an application under s. 41 is to be treated as a suit. Even in the judgment cited above on behalf of the petitioner this Court held that when a proceeding under s. 41 was not defended, the Registrar had jurisdiction to deal with the matter and to pass an ex parte decree in default of appearance of the defendant. 11. Apart from the above, inasmuch as the application under s. 36 filed by the opposite party had been dismissed by the Full Bench and the application for substitution had been made therein, I fail to see as to why the learned court below took up the said application for hearing when there was no lis pending before him. 12. In view of the above, this revisional application succeeds and is allowed. The order complained of is hereby set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. Let a xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual terms. Impugned order set aside.