Limited revisional jurisdiction bars factual reappraisal and allows interference only for grave illegality or manifest injustice.

Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is limited and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. The phrase "according to law" permits interference only where the Small Cause Court acted outside judicial process, ignored binding law, or reached a conclusion no judicial mind could reasonably reach. Mere disagreement with the appreciation of evidence, limitation, or the character of a transaction as loan or deposit does not justify interference. The High Court's revisional power is judicial and must be exercised sparingly to prevent grave illegality or manifest injustice, not to reappraise facts or correct every arguable legal error.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the High Court can enter into questions of law or fact, including limitation and the nature of a transaction as a loan or deposit, and if so, to what extent.

Analysis: The judgment draws a clear distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction. A revision under Section 25 is not an appeal in disguise, and the absence of a general right of appeal under the Act is treated as deliberate. The phrase "according to law" is construed not as authorising a rehearing on facts or an ordinary correction of legal error, but as permitting interference only where the Small Cause Court has acted outside the proper forms of judicial process, ignored binding law, or reached a conclusion that no judicial mind could reasonably reach. Mere disagreement with the finding on evidence, debatable questions of law, or an alternative view on limitation or the character of the transaction is insufficient. The discretion under Section 25 is judicial and is to be exercised sparingly, principally to prevent grave illegality or manifest injustice.

Conclusion: The High Court cannot interfere on questions of fact, and it can interfere on questions of law only when the decision is one that no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached or when the matter is otherwise not according to law.

---