Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.
1. The preliminary objection taken in this case is that no second appeal lies on the ground that the suit in which it is preferred is of a nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes within the meaning of Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code, the amount or value of the subject matter not exceeding Rs. 500. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the appellant that a second appeal will lie because the suit was not cognizable by the Judge of. the district in which it was instituted since he was invested with jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court only up to a limit of Rs. 50. In nature the suit is a suit for rent and the notification contemplated by Clause 8 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887) has been issued in The Bombay Government Gazette of 1911, whereby the Governor in Council was pleased 'to invest Subordinate Judges of all districts in the Bombay Presidency proper with authority to try on the Small Cause Side of their Courts all suits for the recovery of rent arising within the local limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of their Courts and falling within the pecuniary limits up to which suits are cognizable by them, as Judges of Courts of Small Causes '.
2. It has been held by various Courts in India that the words 'suit of the nature cognizable in Courts of Small Causes', which was the wording of Section 586 of the Code of 1882, referred to the nature of the suit, that is, to a suit relating to a subject matter over which a Court of Small Causes would have jurisdiction if within its pecuniary limits and not to the Court which tries the case. There is no substantial difference between the words ofs.586ofthe Codeof 1882 and Section 102 of the Code of 1908. The particular point which arises for decision in this case was referred to a Pull Bench of the Madras High Court, the judgments on which reference will be found reported in Soundaram Ayyar v. Sennia Naickan I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 547. There a rent suit had been instituted before the District Munsif of Madura. The District Munsifs jurisdiction was limited to suits not exceeding Rs. 200 in value and Mr. Justice Shephard, one of the Judges whose opinion prevailed, states as follows:-' To my mind it is, in the legal sense of the term, absurd to say that a suit for Rs. 400 claimed as rent might, but for the fact that the District Munsif's jurisdiction under the Act was limited to suits not exceeding Rs. 200 in value, be tried as a small cause and at the same time to deny that such suit is of the nature of suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes'. As has been pointed out by my learned brother in argument, the pecuniary limit of the Small Cause Court Judge's jurisdiction in this case is Rs. 50 for all suits cognizable by a Court of Small Causes but that would be no reason for permitting a second appeal in every suit not excluded by the terms of the Second Schedule of the provincial Small Cause Courts Act which was tried by him, where the amount claimed is Rs. 60 for all the suits would still be of a nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes. For these reasons, I am of opinion that the preliminary objection must prevail that no second appeal lies and the appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.
3. I agree. I think that the intention of the Legislature is given effect to by the decision proposed, though I am not unmindful of the force of some of the arguments used by Mr. Justice Subrahmania Ayyar in the Madras Full Bench case of Soundaram Ayyar v. Sennia Naickan I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 547.