1. This application under section 114 read with section 151, C.P.C., that was originally filed again to the judgment and decree of the Court of Small Causes passed in Suit No.65 of 1995, dated 27-2-1998 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.15,310 with costs. Present application is directed against the order of this Court, dated 12-1-2000 dismissing R.A. No.149 of 1998 as under:-- "Against this order Civil Revision under section. 115, C.P.C. was filed on 10-8-1998.
2. Subsequently on 15-9-1998 Advocate for applicant filed C.M.A. No.1331 of 1998 under Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C., requesting that appellant may be allowed to amend the title page of memo. of appeal and insert section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act in place of section 115, C.P.C. On 18-9-1998 this application was allowed. So, this is not R.A. but it is an appeal under the provision of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1987 which has different procedure for recovery of small amounts falling within the jurisdiction of such Court. The relevant portion of the impugned order has already been reproduced above: The appellant instead of approaching the lower Court has come to this Court. No case is made out for interference with the impugned order. The revision is, therefore, dismissed."
3. At the time of hearing a preliminary objection on the point of limitation was raised and the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following reports: Jawed Singh v. Ala Singh AIR 1938 Lah. 295, Wali Muhammad v. Wali Muhammad PLD 1974 SC 1956, Dada Steel Mills v. Government of Balochistan 1986 SCM R 1602, Nadir Khan v. Liaquat Ali 1999 SCM R 1132, Mst. Zojan v. Muhammad Hasan 1999 M LD 2096 and Ghulam Nabi v. Rashid PLD 2000 SC 63. Wherein it has been held that time consumed for obtaining certified copies can be excluded in case of review. Accordingly this objection is dropped in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid reports.
4. The revision application under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act was dismissed after my learned brother Mr. Justice Amanullah Abbasi (as he then was) on the assumption that it was an appeal under the provisions of the said Act vide order, dated 1-3-1999.
5. Appeal provided under section 24 of the said Act has a limited scope which is restricted to the extent of orders made by the Small Causes Court falling under clause (ff) or clause (h) or subsection (1) of section 104 of Court of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and it is only in such cases that the appeal lies to the District Court.
6. The instant case does not fall under any of the specified cases and is beyond the scope of appeal under section 24 of the said Act.
7. Cases not covered by section 24 are not subject to appeal before the District Judge but attract provisions of section 25 as reproduced as under:--- "25. The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit."
8. The review application filed in the case.under section 25 of the said Act, is thus, the only remedy available to the present applicants against the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court which lies before the High Court as specified in the section itself. The order, dated 12-1-2000 passed on the basis of the word "appeal" used in the application seeking permission for amendment (M.A.
9. 1331 of 1998) by which permission was granted for the revision to be read under section 25 of the said Act in place of section 115, C.P.C. The amended title of the review application filed under section 25 of the said Act giving the correct description and section of the law applicable and being the only remedy available to the applicants from the High Court as specifically mentioned in section 25 of the said Act. The order is thus, a result of ignoring the provision of section 25 empowering the High Court for exercise of jurisdiction in revision of law and the distinction provided under sections 24 and 25 of the aforesaid Act has escaped consideration while passing the order.
10. The error of law is apparent on the face of record and calls for indulgence by way of review to prevent injustice being done to the applicant by the Court. As held in the cases of Muhammad Aslam Mirza v. Mst. Khurshid Begum, PLD 1972 Lah. 603 and Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. State PLD 1979 SC 741.
11. Accordingly .C.M.A. 275 of 2000 is allowed and order of this Court, dated 12-1-2000 holding the revision application moved under section 25 of the Sindh Small Causes Act, 1887 to be an appeal and dismissing the same as such is hereby recalled. The case may now be fixed for Katcha Peshi according to roster.