(1) The petitioner original plaintiff has filed this Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and challenged the judgement and decree dated 21.2.2007 passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Summary Civil Suit No. 621 of 2003.

(2) According to the petitioner, the parties are brothers and the respondent was managing the affairs of the joint family properties but did not render accounts despite repeated demands by the petitioner. On account of intervention of relatives, accounts were settled on 12.12.2001 and a writing was executed in that regard. As per the said writing, the respondent was required to pay an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/-. The respondent agreed to pay the said amount within two to three months but did not pay the same. Therefore, the petitioner served a notice dated 13.12.2002 and demanded the amount. The respondent gave evasive reply to the said notice and therefore the suit was filed to recover the outstanding amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization and cost of the suit.

(3) The respondent appeared in the suit and contested the same. The respondent denied the contents of writing dated 12.12.2001 and also contended that memorandum of understanding was arrived at between the parties and it was reduced into writing on 15.5.2001. According to the said writing, accounts were settled and the respondent was not required to pay any amount and therefore the suit is required to be dismissed.

(4) Learned trial Judge framed issues and the parties adduced evidence. After hearing learned advocates for the parties and considering the evidence on record, learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this Revision Application.

(5) I have heard learned advocate Mr. Sunil C. Patel for the petitioner at length and in great detail.

(6) It is not in dispute that the suit for recovery of outstanding amount was filed in the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad and the respondent appeared in the suit and contested the same. Learned trial Judge after considering the rival contentions dismissed the suit. It is not in dispute that the proceeding in the Small Causes Court is governed by the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882. Section 38 of the said Act reads as under: Where as suit has been contested, the Small Cause Court may, on the application of either party, made within eight days, from the date of the decree or order in the suit (not being a decree passed under Section 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure) order a new trial to be held, or alter, set aside or reverse the decree or order, upon such terms as it thinks reasonable, and may, in the meantime, stay the proceedings. Under Section 37 of the said Act every decree and order of the Small Causes Court in a suit shall be final and conclusive.

(7) In view of the above provisions, it is clear that every decree and order of Small Causes Court passed in a suit is final and conclusive but when the suit has been contested, the Small Causes Court may on the application of either party, order a new trial or alter, set aside or reverse the decree or order. Therefore, the present proceeding under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code Civil Procedure cannot be entertained as the petitioner has not resorted to appropriate remedy available under law.

(8) In view of above, the Revision Application fails and stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.