JUDGMENT : R.B. MEHROTRA, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, Etawah, dated 13-11-1987 dismissing the Petitioner's application for taking additional evidence in a small [cause revision pending before the judge concerned. 2. By the impugned order, the Special Judge has taken a view that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Babu Ram v. The Addl. District Judge Dehradun 1983 ARC 15, the revisional court has got no jurisdiction to admit any additional evidence in a small causes revision. The question which require consideration in the present matter is whether the revisional court exercising jurisdiction u/s 25 of the provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has got any power to admit additional evidence in the revision pending before it. 3. The Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, which has been relied upon in the impugned order, held: Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC confers right on a court of appeal to admit additional evidence. But, since that order has expressly been excluded from application to Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, neither. Order XLI Rule 27 in terms nor in principle can be applied for taking additional evidence. So far as a revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is concerned, the Court has a much narrower power than that of the first appellate court. u/s 25 the Court cannot interfere only when the decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was not according to law. Order XLI Rule 27 cannot, therefore, be pressed in service for admitting additional evidence in revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. The question that next arises is whether additional evidence can be admitted in a case u/s 25 by a court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction Section 17 as observed above, requires the procedure laid down by the CPC to be followed in all suits and in all proceedings pending out of such suits. Section 151 is not one of the provisions mentioned in the list excluded from application to the Courts constituted under the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Hence, Section 151, since it has not been excluded, applies which preserves the inherent powers of the court. Section 151 is not one of the provisions mentioned in the list excluded from application to the Courts constituted under the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Hence, Section 151, since it has not been excluded, applies which preserves the inherent powers of the court. Every court is constituted for the propose of doing justice according to law and must therefore be deemed to possess as a necessary corollary, and has inherent in its very constitution, all such powers as may be necessary to do the right and undo the wrong in the course of the administration of justice 6 Moor. Ind. App. 393. In fact, Section 151 does not confer but only saves the inherent jurisdiction. An inherent power is right, ability or faculty of doing a thing without its being delivered or conferred. The inherent power of a Court to do justice in fact, flows from the well recognized principle of equity, justice and good conscience which applies to courts deciding a suit under the Small Cause Courts Act. Section 40 of the Bengal and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1987 gives a list of various sections of the said Act applicable to Courts of Small Causes, one of the sections mentioned is Section 40 is Section 37. Sub-section (2) of Section 37 which is relevant for our purposes, is quoted below: In cases not provided for by Sub-section (1) or by any other law for the time being in force, the Court shall act according to justice, equity and good conscience. A court of Small Causes therefore is also required to keep in view justice, equity and good conscience while deciding a suit. The inherent power which has been preserved by Section 151 is only one of the many aspects of the aforesaid principle of justice, equity and good conscience. Which is to be kept in view while administering justice between the parties. 4. From the above discussion, it is clear that the Division Bench of this Court held that under inherent powers of the court for doing justice between the parties, the revisional court exercising its jurisdiction u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, has also the power to take additional evidence for doing complete justice between the parties. 5. I have heard Sri M.M.D. Agarwal in support of the writ petition and Sri Prakash Krishna in opposition to the writ petition. 5. I have heard Sri M.M.D. Agarwal in support of the writ petition and Sri Prakash Krishna in opposition to the writ petition. Sri Prakash Krishna has submitted that u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act the revisional court has only power to decide as to whether the decree or the judgment of the court below is in accordance with law. The revisional court has no power to enter into the facts of the case and as such has no power to take any additional evidence for determining the facts decided by the Judge Small Cause Court. According to Sri Prakash Krishna the power to take additional evidence can be exercised by a revisional court deciding a small cause court revision only in cases where subsequent events are to be taken into consideration. The aforesaid submission Sri Prakash Krishna has made on the basis of some observations made in the Division Bench decision referred to above. I am unable to agree with his submission. According to me, the Division Bench has clearly laid down that in appropriate cases, the revisional court may admit the additional evidence if the revisional court is of the opinion that the document or additional evidence is necessary for doing justice between the parties. It depends on individual case as to when a document or an additional evidence is necessary for doing justice between the parties. In the present case, the Special Judge has not approached the matter from the aforesaid aspect. The Special Judge was in error in taking the view that there was a complete ban in admitting additional evidence while exercising jurisdiction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The question which requires consideration in the present matter is whether the document which the Petitioner revisionist is filing as additional evidence is necessary for doing justice between the parties or not? The revisional court should look into the matter from the aforesaid angle to find out as to whether the additional documents proposed to be filed by the revisionist are necessary for doing justice between the parties. Since the matter has not been approached from the aforesaid angle. I set aside the order of the Special Judge. The revisional court should look into the matter from the aforesaid angle to find out as to whether the additional documents proposed to be filed by the revisionist are necessary for doing justice between the parties. Since the matter has not been approached from the aforesaid angle. I set aside the order of the Special Judge. Etawah passed in Revision No. 110 of 1985, dated 13-11-1987 and remand back the matter with a direction that the Special Judge, Etawah should decide the Petitioners' application for admitting additional evidence in the light of the observations made in this judgment. Since the case is pending from the year 1985, I direct that the revision should be expeditiously decided and in any case should be decided within six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before the Special Judge, Etawah. The writ petition is according allowed. Parties will bear their own costs. 6. A copy of this order may be given to the parties within four days.