78 where the Supreme Court has observed that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court is somewhat wider than the revisional jurisdiction exercised under Section 115 of C.P.C. However, it could not be treated to be so wide as to turn the Court into an Appellate Court. The High Court is not conferred with the status of Second Court of First Appeal and High Court should not enlarge the scope of revisional jurisdiction to such an extent. It has been observed that re-appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken in revisional jurisdiction and the High Court should confine itself to finding out whether the finding of facts recorded by the Court below is according to law and it does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by the Court/Authority below if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of material evidence or such findings is based on no evidence, or misreading of evidence, or is grossly erroneous that if allowed to stand, it would result in grave miscarriage of justice, is open to correction. However, to satisfy itself to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein, the High Court should not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate and reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. The revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as Court of First Appeal.
