JUDGMENT 1. This appears to be a composite application under a misapprehension being one under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act read with Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition has conceded before this Court that the application in such a composite manner will not lie and it is well settled now that the High Court is conferred with the revisional power under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Couses Courts Act. 2. The said revisional application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court in S. C. C. Suit No. 887 of 1983. 3. At the very outset before touching on the factual score of the conspectus of controversy it is salient to succinctly pin-point the law on the subject as powers of the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act are wider in scope than the powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. High Court has the power to exercise discretion to set aside the judgment of the Court of Small Causes, if it causes injustice to the parties. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code cannot have 'over-riding effect on the provisions engrafted in Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. High Court can exercise its power of revision, if a suit is decided by the Small Causes Courts Act. To stop any possibility of miscarriage of justice the expression "according to law" on the basis of which the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act lies is actually the limit of the exercise of the powers by the High Court and beyond it the jurisdiction of the High Court ceases. The term "according to law" includes within its ambit several factors and High Court has wide powers in revision to set aside the trial Court's order, if it is not in accordance with law and also the facts are otherwise on the face of it recorded by the Trial Court are perverse. The revisional powers of the High Court can be exercised to cure gross mistake of the Trial Court and particularly, those relating to error resulting in miscarriage of justice. 4. The revisional powers of the High Court can be exercised to cure gross mistake of the Trial Court and particularly, those relating to error resulting in miscarriage of justice. 4. From the reading of the plaint of the connected suit as averred in paragraph 3, it appears that the plaintiff has stated that the defendants are the tenants of the said structure as mentioned in the Schedule at a monthly rental of Rs. 20/- according to Bengali Calendar month and the schedule as mentioned makes a reference about tbe piece and parcel of a structure of talli roof and a pucca wall. 5. In paragraph 10 of the written statement the said allegations are disputed by the defendants as they have alleged that they are not the tenants of the structures under the plaintiff and they are thika tenants in respect of the land in question. 6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the salient provisions incorporated under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and Clause (1) thereof specifically makes it clear that if the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. 7. Further attention of this Court has been drawn to Section 15(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which envisages that a Court of Small" Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the second schedule as suits of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. 8. It is well settled that whether the suit is cognizable by the Small Causes Court or not does not depend upon the defence. The Court is required to see from the averments contained in the plaint whether it has got inherent jurisdiction. 9. Here, in this case, the moot point which permeated the entire range of controversy in the impugned order under decision is as to whether the defendant is a thika tenant under the plaintiff or not. The Court is required to see from the averments contained in the plaint whether it has got inherent jurisdiction. 9. Here, in this case, the moot point which permeated the entire range of controversy in the impugned order under decision is as to whether the defendant is a thika tenant under the plaintiff or not. The learned Judge of the Court below in unambiguous terms has held that the defendants are the thika tenants in respect of the structure. 10. It is extremely doubtful as to whether such a finding can at all be arrived at by the learned Court of the limited jurisdiction as it relates to the question of determination of title. The very controversy about the locus standi of a person in occupation as to whether he is a thika tenant or a premises tenant is a matter which is capable of being gone into only by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. If there is inherent obstacle for the Court of limited jurisdiction to be in seisin of the controversy to determine the question relating to tile them, that question cannot be gone into by a court of limited jurisdiction being one of Small Causes Court. The said court can scrutinise that question by way of off-shoot or ancillary proposition when it has the main bearing on the pivotal controversy. Here, from the perusal of the order, it appears that the controversy is restricted only to the determination of the question as to whether the defendants are thika tenants or not under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. 11. Accordingly, the order under challenge suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction because of the embargo flowing from Section 15(1) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. 12. It is a settled law that suits, directly or mainly involving question of title to immovable property are not entertainable by a Court of Small Causes. Such a Court should not proceed with a case where only or the sole question involved is one of title and where it appears that substantial object of the suit is to try title under cover of a small causes claim. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside because of inherent infirmity by way of unsurption of jurisdiction, which is not otherwise sanctioned by the provisions of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside because of inherent infirmity by way of unsurption of jurisdiction, which is not otherwise sanctioned by the provisions of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. In view of the provisions further embodied in Section 23 of the said Act, I direct the learned Judge of the Court below to return the plaint to be presented to a Court of competent civil jurisdiction to determine the title. The findings arrived at in the impugned order will have no bearing on the fresh adjudication of the issue concerning determination of the status of a defendant as a thika tenant or not. 14. The learned Trial Judge is directed to return the plaint of the connected suit to a proper civil court of competent jurisdiction within a period of four weeks from the communication of this order. 15. Accordingly the instant revisional application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Let a xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocates for the respective parties on usual undertaking.