1. This is an application by the defendant under Section 115, Civil P.C. The facts are that the plaintiff brought a suit upon the basis of a promissory note for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 82-8-0. The suit was filed in the Court of the Small Cause Judge, Benares, on 2nd January 1932. A note was made on the order sheet as follfows:
Transferred to the Honorary Munsif's Court under the order of the District Judgo of Benares dated 24th June 1931.
2. The Honorary Munsif's Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff went in appeal and the Additional Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Benares decreed the plaintiff's suit. In revision it is argued before me that no appeal lay to the learned Subordinate Judge. The argument is that the case must be deemed to be transferred from the Court of the Small Cause Court Judge to the Court of the Honorary Munsif under Section 24, Civil P.C., and under Clause (4) the Honorary Munsif, trying the suit so transferred, should, for the purposes of the suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. It is however contended by learned Counsel for the opposite party that Clause (4), Section 24, Civil P.C., does not apply where the District Judge transfers the suit pending in a Court of Small Causes to the Court of Honorary Munsifs as is clear from the Honorary Munsifs Act (Local Act 2 of 1896). It is specifically provided therein that the last paragraph of Section 25 of the old Civil Procedure Code, (corresponding to Section 24 of the present Code), shall not be applicable to cases so transferred from Courts of Small Causes. It is clear that the case was transferred from the Court of Small Causes under some general order passed by the District Judge on 24th June 1931 long before the institution of the present suit and the transfer must be deemed, therefore to be a transfer Section 8, Honorary Munsifs Act. In the case of a transfer by the District Judge of a case pending in the Court of Small Causes to the Court of Honorary Munsifs, there is a clear provision that Clause (4), Section 24 will not apply. This is the view taken by the learned Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, Mr. Lindsay, in Mt. Nazir Bibi v. Daya Shankar 1917 Oudh. 104. Boys, J., also took the same view in Megi Mal v. Hira Lal 1924 All. 761.
3. I am therefore of the opinion that an appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge against the decision of the Honorary Munsif and there is no force in the first contention advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant. The other pleas taken in revision cannot be entertained because they deal with pure questions of fact. I dismiss this application with costs.