Karmat Husain, J.
1. The learned Vakil for the applicant argues that in the circumstances of the case the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree in favour of the defendant inasmuch as his claim was not a set-off. A set-off, according to the argument of the learned Vakil, arises in those cases only in which a sum of money is found due to the plaintiff. If no sum is found to be due to the plaintiff, no question of set-off can arise be cause for the existence of a set-off, under the provisions of Sections 111, and 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act XIV of 1882, the existence of a sum of money in favour of the plaintiff is necessary. He relies on Misri Lal v. Banarsi Das A.W.N. (1906), P. 111 : 3 A.L.J. 233. I am unable to accede to this contention. A plea of set off is undoubtedly available 'where the claims on both sides are in respect of liquidated debts or money demands which can be readily and without difficulty ascertained' Stooke v. Taylor (1879-80) 5 Q.B.D. (N.S.) 569 at p. 575 : 49 L.J.Q.B. 857 : 43 L.T. 200 : 29 W.R. 49 : 44 : 44 J.P. 748. The case relied on by the learned Vakil for the applicant does not lay down that a plea of set-off can be claimed in those cases only in which a sum of money is found due to the plaintiff, Ramjiwan Mal v. Chand Mal 10 A. 587 is in favour of the view that with reference to the facts of the case before me, the claim by the defendant was a set-off and was rightly decreed by the Court below. This application for revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.