1. In this case a preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies. The amount in dispute in the case was Rs. 252-10, only, and the plaintiff asked for nothing more than a. simple money decree. It is true that the-bond on which his claim was based was a hypothecation bond, but he expressly abandoned all claim against the mortgaged property and framed his suit purely as a money suit. Under these circumstances Section 102, Civil P.C., applies and no-second appeal lies. The appellant pleads that the suit should be treated as falling under Articles 6 or 11 of the second-Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause-Courts Act. Neither of these articles is-applicable, Article 6 applies to suits for sale or foreclosure and to suits for redemption but to no other kinds of suit. Article-11 applies only to suits for the enforcement of a right to or interest in immovable property. No such right is sought-to be enforced in this case. The ruling in Suhhdeo Prasad v. Lachman Singh (1902) 21 All. 456 cited by the appellant is inapplicable. There the suit was framed as an ordinary mortgage suit in which sale of the property was asked for. It was only at a later stage of the case that the plaintiff' withdrew his relief for sale of the property and expressed his willingness to be content with a simple money decree, I give effect to the preliminary objection and> dismiss the appeal with costs.