Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.
1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this application, namely, that no revision lies. The suit was instituted in the Court of a Judge of Small Cause and was undoubtedly a suit of Small Causes Court nature. The suit was, however, transferred by an order of a superior Court under Section 24, Civil P. C, to the Court of the Munsif who had no Small Cause Court power up to the valuation of the claim. It was finally disposed of by him. The contention before us is that an appeal ought to have been preferred to the District Judge from the decree and, inasmuch as no appeal was preferred, no revision should be entertained. In our opinion when the case was transferred from the Court of Small Causes to that of the Munsif the latter Court must under Section 24, Sub-clause (4), Civil P. C, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. The proceedings in this Court therefore must be governed by the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This view was accepted in the case of Sukha v. Raghunath Das  39 All. 214 with which we agree. It is therefore clear that no appeal lay to the District Judge and consequently there is no bar to this revision.
2. Coming to the merits of the case, it appears that the promissory note in question was executed when the defendant's brother was being prosecuted in a criminal case for misappropriation of certain amount. It cannot, however, be disputed that some money was undoubtedly due from the defendant's brother. In order to put a stop to further trouble the defendant agreed to execute the promissory note for Rs. 482 and Rs. 200 were paid in cash. The judgment does not clearly show in what way the criminal proceedings dropped, but it is not disputed that somehow or other they terminated in favour of the accused.
3. The materials before us are not sufficient to justify a finding that the promissory note was executed with a view to stifling the prosecution. The finding of the Court below that no undue influence was exercised is also one of fact and cannot be questioned.
4. It does, however, appear from the judgment that the total amount of rents due on the date of the execution of the promissory note from the tenants was Rs. 682. Rs. 200 having been paid in cash, the amount of the promissory note represented the maximum amount of rents which were due from the tenants in the sense that they had not been credited. It does not, however, follow that the defendant's brothers had been able to realize the whole of this amount. There can therefore be no doubt that the promissory note was executed for Rs. 482 as representing the maximum amount for which the defendant might on the account being taken be found liable. As a matter of fact there was a connected case for accounts pending, which was not of a Small Cause Court nature and from which, we understand, an appeal is now pending before the District Judge. The simple issue in that case was, what was the actual amount due from the defendant's brother to the plaintiff on the date when the promissory note was executed. We, therefore, think it just and equitable that the final disposal of the present case should be postponed till it has been determined in the other case what the exact liability of the defendant's brother was on the date of the promissory note on account of sums realized by him from the tenants and not credited to the plaintiff. The decree in the present suit should be confined to that amount. The plaintiff of course will get interest on the amount so determined at the contractual rate. With these directions the appeal is allowed, the decree of the Court below is set aside and the case remanded to that Court for disposal according to law. Courts here and hitherto will abide the event.