ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri S. A. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. These two connected writ petitions, raise the common questions of fact and law, therefore, they are decided by a common judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. A. Shah, has submitted that the petitioner, who was consignee of a consignment, booked through Railways from Mahoba to Kasganj in the district of Etah. Since the aforesaid consignment contained perishable item, namely, betel leaves, when the consignment did not reach within normal time at the destination the goods being perishable in nature were in fact perished. The petitioner, therefore, filed a suit for damages against the Railways. The suit was of the nature of small causes as per valuation of the case. The trial court framed issues and decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,300 plus interest till the date of decree amount to Rs. 1,290 in the case of Writ Petition No. 8912 of 1982 plus interest pendente lite.
4. Aggrieved against the order and decree of the trial court the railways filed revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional court reversed the decree holding that in fact the goods presented for carriage were not in good condition, therefore, the Railways cannot be held responsible for the damages, if any, caused to the consignment.
5. Sri Shah has submitted that the revisional court has no Jurisdiction to reassess or reappraise the evidence. He further submitted that even if the revisional court arrived at the finding that the revision deserved to be allowed, it could not have dismissed the suit and the only remedy open to the revisional court was to remand the case for recording of finding afresh as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Laxmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545, followed in the case of Om Prakash Gupta v. Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh and Ors., 1996 (2) ARC 532.
6. In the face of the aforesaid interpretation the power of the revisional court was to have remanded the case to the trial court laying down the proper guidelines for trial court to decide the matter. In this view of the matter since the revisional court has dismissed the suit itself in the proceedings of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, Sri Shah argued that the order of the revisional court deserves to be quashed. I find substance in the submissions made by Sri Shah. The order of the revisional court deserves to be quashed.
7. The order dated 10.2.1982 is quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. The matter is remanded to the trial court to be decided in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench.
8. Since the matter is fairly old, the trial court is directed to decide the matter expeditiously.