1. On behalf of the respondents Mr. Panna Lal has raised a preliminary objection that no second appeal lies. This point is covered by authority of this Court in his favour. There is a Bench ruling Chintamani v. Mahima Dat 19 Ind. Cas. 628 There in a case similar to the present it was held that a second appeal would be barred under the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The point at issue will be whether a suit. for the recovery of a share of offerings at a temple is one barred from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes under Article 13 of Schedule II of that Act or not. The present suit was of a value of Rs. 375 only. So it would lie in a Court of Small Causes unless barred from such cognizance by, any Article in the Second Schedule. This Court has consistently taken the view that a suit of that nature is not barred from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. All the rulings have been summarised in the case noted above. More recently in 1922 a Bench of two Judges of the Lahore High Court has pronounced a similar opinion in Shiv Gir v. Khazan Gir 77 Ind. Cas. 561 : 3 Lah. 369 : A.I.R. 1922 Lah : 451. It was held there that Article 13 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act related to claims made against a person who is primarily liable to pay the cesses or dues.
2. I dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs.