N. K. BATABYAL, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiffs-petitioners filed SCC Suit No. 4 of 1977 in the Court of Second Munsif, Basirhat against Smt. Sandhya Rani Modak for recovery of rent. During the pendency of the suit an application was filed for return of the plaint under section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 by the defendant. The Learned Munsif has been pleased to return the plaint to the Learned Lawyer for the plaintiffs for presentation before the proper Court. ( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the plaintiffs in the suit has filed an application under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 for setting aside the order. This application has been registered as C. R. No. 1770 of 1980. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs-petitioners filed another Suit being SCC Suit No. 6 of 1977 in the Court of the Learned Munsif, 2nd Court a Basirhat against Md. Samjed Ali alias Samsel Ali for realisation of arrear rents. The O. P. filed written statement to contest the suit. During the pendency of the Suit an application under section 23 of the Provincial Smal l Causes Court Act, 1887 was filed by the defendants for return of the plaint. The Learned Munsif has been pleased to direct to return of the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Learned Munsif, the plaintiffs have filed an application under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. This has been registered as C. R. No. 1772 of 1980. ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs-petitioners filed SCC Suit No. 5 of 1977 in the Court of the Learned Second Munsif at Basirhat against Md. Samjed Ali, alias Samsel Ali for recovery of arrears of rent. The defendant filed written statement to contest the Suit. During the pendency of the Suit, an application under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act was filed for return of the plaint. The Learned Munsif has been pleased to direct that the plaint be returned to the filing Lawyer for presentation before the proper court. The defendant filed written statement to contest the Suit. During the pendency of the Suit, an application under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act was filed for return of the plaint. The Learned Munsif has been pleased to direct that the plaint be returned to the filing Lawyer for presentation before the proper court. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Learned Munsif, the landlords have filed an application under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. ( 7 ) THESE three applications under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 have been taken up together for analogous hearing as the questions involved are identical in all the three rules. The contention of the plaintiffs-petitioners in all the cases is that one Agarnath Mitra was the original owner of the property in dispute. After his death, his four sons, namely, Satish Chandra, Nani Gopal, Panchanan and Dhirendra became the owners of the said property in equal share according to the Hindu Law of Succession. Nani Gopal died in 1951, leaving Ashoke Kumar Mitra, his only son and Smt. Avarani, his widow as his legal representatives. Satish also died in 1971 leaving his son, Rabindranath as his sole heir. The legal heirs and successors of Agarnath sold their right title and interest in the suit property to the plaintiffs-petitioners upon a registered Sale Deed dated 6th January, 1977 for good consideration. The opposite parties in the three suits mentioned above were tenants in respect of rooms under the transferer landlords. The opposite parties in the said three suits declined to pay rent to plaintiffs-petitioners for their respective tenancies inspite of repeated requests and demands to pay rent. Thereafter, the petitioners were compelled to file the suits mentioned above in the SCC Court at Basirhat for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiffs-petitioners also filed a separate suit for declaration of title and injunction against the opposite parties for creating disturbance to the peaceful possession of the transferred property in various ways and manners. The said suit is numbered as Title Suit No. 146 of 1977 in the Court of the 1st Munsif at Basirhat. The plaintiffs-petitioners also filed a separate suit for declaration of title and injunction against the opposite parties for creating disturbance to the peaceful possession of the transferred property in various ways and manners. The said suit is numbered as Title Suit No. 146 of 1977 in the Court of the 1st Munsif at Basirhat. The O. P. , Samjed Ali and another have also fled a suit being Title Suit No. 79 of 1977 against the plaintiffs-petitioners praying for partition in the 10th Court of Subordinate Judge at Alipore on the basis of a registered Deed of Sale alleged to have been executed in their favour by Ashoke Mitra, son of Late Nani Gopal Mitra on 25th January, 1977. That suit is still pending. In the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties in the SCC suits, they took the stand that they were not liable to pay any rent as they had become owners of 4 annas share of the suit property by virtue of their purchase of the share of Ashoke Kumar Mitra, son of Late Nani Gopal Mitra upon a Sale Deed dated 25th January, 1977. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties filed applications in the SCC Suit praying for return of the plaint under section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 contending that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and there was a pending suit in the 10th Court of subordinate Judge wherein the question of title was involved. The Learned SC Judge has been pleased to hold that as the question of title is involved in the SCC Suit, therefore, the SC Court cannot decide the case. He has accordingly directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs' Lawyer for presentation before the proper court. ( 8 ) AGAINST this background the plaintiffs in the SCC suits have come up in revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. ( 9 ) THE application is stoutly opposed by the Opposite Parties. ( 10 ) THE only point for consideration is whether the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. ( 11 ) THE jurisdiction of this Court under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 is discretionary. ( 9 ) THE application is stoutly opposed by the Opposite Parties. ( 10 ) THE only point for consideration is whether the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. ( 11 ) THE jurisdiction of this Court under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 is discretionary. The only purpose for which this Court can call for a case and pass an order with respect thereto under this section is to satisfy itself that a decree or order under the Act has been made according to law. But when there is an obvious misapprehension of legal position, resulting in the miscarriage of justice, the High Court can interfere in revision. ( AIR 1963 AP 25 , Mancheri Narasimham v. Mahabubunisa ). ( 12 ) THE learned Lawyer for the revisionists has drawn the attention of the Court to a case reported in 1986 (1) CHN 285 , Chittaranjan Pal v. Dhirendra Nath Biswas, where in a similar case it was held that the Court could incidentally look into the question of title in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent in an SCC Suit. In the reported case, the petitioner as plaintiff in both the rules filed two separate suits against the two opposite parties in the SC Court for recovery of rent, claiming to have acquired absolute title to the property wherein the two opposite parties were the tenants. The opposite parties after appearance raised the plea that two persons had purchased four annas interest in the property and that they (the tenants) attorned the tenancy right under them and further, a title suit was pending concerning the said sale. The Learned Judge returned both the plaints holding that there is a complicated question of title involved in the suits which cannot be decided by the SC Courts. Held, only because a title suit is pending, it cannot be held in the facts of the case that there is a complicated question of title which the Court of Small Causes could not decide incidentally on taking proper evidence. ( 13 ) THE Learned Lawyer for the opposite parties has submitted that under section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, the Court has a discretion either to return or not to return the plaint. ( 13 ) THE Learned Lawyer for the opposite parties has submitted that under section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, the Court has a discretion either to return or not to return the plaint. The jurisdiction of the SC Court under section 16 of the Act of 1887 is a preferential jurisdiction and not an exclusive one. Therefore, if, the Learned Judge has rightly or wrongly passed an order directing return of the plaint, this Court sitting in revision should not interfere with the impugned order as the impugned order has been passed within jurisdiction. In other words, the Learned Lawyer for the Opposite Parties has tried to impress upon the Court that as there is no jurisdictional error, therefore, it will not be proper to interfere with the impugned order even if this Court takes a different view on the matter. ( 14 ) THE Learned Lawyer for the plaintiffs-petitioners has submitted that a plain reading of the impugned order passed by the Learned SCC Judge will convince that the Learned Judge has declined to exercise jurisdiction in the matter on the ground that a question of title is involved in the suit. Hence, it is a case where the Learned Court has not exercised a jurisdiction vested in the Court itself. ( 15 ) THE language of section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 is very clear. If the question of title is incidentally involved for determination of relationship of landlord and tenant, a Court of Small Causes can certainly try such a suit. Under this section, a Small Causes Court is given considerable discretion to return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title if it considers that the right of the plaintiff and the reliefs claimed by him in the Court of Small Causes depends upon the proof or disproof of a title to the immovable property or other title which a Court cannot finally determine ( AIR 1974 Raj 170 , Alimuddin v. Md. Ishaq ). ( 16 ) IN a case reported in AIR 1938 Bom 223 (Bell and Co. Lad. v. Waman Hemraj), it has been held that section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 ought not to be construed as giving the parties a right of appeal on points of law. Ishaq ). ( 16 ) IN a case reported in AIR 1938 Bom 223 (Bell and Co. Lad. v. Waman Hemraj), it has been held that section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 ought not to be construed as giving the parties a right of appeal on points of law. The object of section 25 is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice, that the decision was given according to law. Whenever 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 the Court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the Judge to heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at. In that case, the Judge in course of the trial arrived at a certain conclusion as to the construction of hire-purchase agreement and the rights of the parties thereunder. Held, whether that conclusion was right or not would be opened to discussion in appeal but it was not opened to discussion in revision. It was submitted before the Court that the Learned Judge was wrong in law as he disregarded a decision of the High Court concerned as the point involved. It was held that if the Learned Judges' judgment was not in accordance with a decision of the High Court, still other Judges' would follow the decision of the High Court and no public benefit would be served by repeating what was already decided by the High Court. The Learned Judge declined to go into the merits of the question as that would be to allow an appeal against a decision of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes and that the statute had forbidden. ( 17 ) THIS decision was followed in a case reported in AIR 1981 All 261 (Noor Md. Khan v. Rashi Ahmed and Ors. ). ( 18 ) IN the case at hand, the Learned SCC Judge purporting to act under section 23 of the Act returned the plaint on the ground that the question of title was involved in the matter. Khan v. Rashi Ahmed and Ors. ). ( 18 ) IN the case at hand, the Learned SCC Judge purporting to act under section 23 of the Act returned the plaint on the ground that the question of title was involved in the matter. According to the Learned Lawyer for the petitioners as the question of title was not main question, the Learned Judge could incidentally decide the question of title and dispose of the SCC suit accordingly. The Learned Lawyer for the petitioners has in support of his contention has banked upon the case reported in 1986 (I) CHN 285 referred to above. In that case the Learned Judge decided that the Learned SCC Judge was in error in returning the plaint after observing that the suits raised complicated question of title. Under section 25 of the PSCC Act, 1887, the Court has to see whether the decree or order was according to law. Section 23 of the Act gives a discretion to the Court to return the plaint. If the plaint in a proper case is not returned and the Court goes into the question of title, then the decision does not constitute res judicata, so far as the question of title is concerned between the parties because the SC Courts lack inherent jurisdiction to decide questions of title finally. In the Bombay case reported above, it was held that though the Learned Judge was wrong in law still, there was no necessity of interfering with the decision of the Learned SCC Judge in revision as that would open the gates of considering questions which could he taken up only in appeal. And there is a statutory bat against hearing of appeals against the decision of an SCC Judge. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the there revisional application me dismissed. No order as to costs. The rules are discharged. Let a xerox copy of this order be given to the Learned Advocates of both the sides on the usual undertaking. Application dismissed.