Sunder Lal, J.
1. This is an application for the revision of an order made by Mr. Pullan, District Judge of Mainpuri, holding that no appeal lay to him. The learned Judge refused to admit the appeal. The facts out of which this application arises are as follows: On 20th January 1914, the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 220, being balance due to the plaintiff on account of cloth sold to the defendant. The suit being of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, it was filed in the Court of Mr. Ladli Prasad, Subordinate Judge, who was invested with the powers of the Court of Small Causes. Mr. Ladli Prasad fixed 29th May 1914 for the hearing of the case, but before the date fixed for the hearing arrived, Mr. Ladli Prasad was transferred to some other Court. He was succeeded by Mr. Ram Chander Suksena, who was not invested with the powers of a Court of Small Causes. The District Judge of Mainpuri, by an order dated 23rd May 1914, transferred the case to the Court of the Munsif of Mainpuri. The papers were received in that Court on 26tb May 1914. The suit was registered in that Court. On 30th May 1914, the case was referred to arbitration. Meanwhile Babu Ram Chnnder Suksena was invested with the powers of a Court of Small Causes on 6th June 1914. Oh 8th June 1914 the learned District Judge made an order transferring the case back again to the' Court of Small Causes and it was received in that Court on 11th June 1914. On 29th June 1914, the arbitrators filed their award. On 15th June 1914, the learned Judge transferred the case to the Court of the Additional Munsif of Mainpuri. Mr. Ram Chunder Suksena, the Subordinate Judge' with powers of a Small Cause Court, continued to hold that office up to 7th October 1914.' The Additional Munsif of Mainpuri set aside' the award on 11th September 1914 and' fixed a date for the hearing of the case on the merits. The case came up for hearing on 8th December 1914, and while the Additional Munsif was engaged in the hearing of the case he received letters for his transfer to Nagina. Farther hearing of the case was stopped, and on 9th December 1914 it was transferred to the Court of the: Munsif of Mainpuri. While the case was pending in that Court an application was made for the transfer of the case back to the Court of Small Causes. Proceedings in the Munsif's Court were stayed pending disposal of this application. The application was eventually rejected and the Munsif proceeded to hear and dispose of the case. He decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendant preferred an appeal against the decree of the Munsif to the Court of the District Judge, and the learned Judge held that no appeal, lay to him. The question is whether under, the circumstances an appeal lay to the Judge. It is clear that in this case an order was made for the transfer of the case from the Court of Small Causes to the Court of the Additional Munsif of. Mainpuri on 15th July 1914. At that time Babu Ram Chunder Suksena who was invested with the powers of a Court of Small Causes was holding office at Mainpuri. Under Section 24, Clause (4), of the Civil Procedure Code when a suit is transferred under this section from a Court of Small Causes to another Court, the latter Court trying the case is to be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. Under this section, therefore, the Munsif of Mainpuri who heard the case on a further order of transfer must-be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes for the purpose of this case and the decree passed by him is final and not open to appeal.
2. Mr. Nihal Chand, holding the brief of Mr. Wallach, has relied upon the case of Sarju Prasad v. Mahadeo Pande 29 Ind. Cas. 996 : 13 A.L.J. 639 : 37 A. 450. In dealing with this case I may point out that the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, Section 35, provides, where a Court of Small Causes, or a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, has from any cause ceased to have jurisdiction with respect to any case, any proceeding in relation to the case, whether before or after decree, which, if the Court had not ceased to have jurisdiction, might have been had therein, may be had in the Court which, if the suit out of which the proceeding has arisen were about to be instituted, would have jurisdiction to try the suit.' There is another section which has also some bearing upon the matter, namely, Section 17 of the Bengal Civil Courts Act, which lays down what is to happen if the Court in which a suit is pending is abolished. It directs that the proceedings in the case may be had in the Court to which the business of the former Court has been transferred. We have, therefore, two distinct provisions of law, namely, Section 24, Civil Procedure Code, which directs that a case transferred from an existing Court of Small Causes to another Court shall be dealt with, as a Small Cause Court case, and the Court to which it is so transferred shall be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. The other two sections to which I have referred deal with cases where a Court has ceased to exist or ceased to exercise such powers. In that case without any order of transfer the case goes to the Court which would have jurisdiction to try it if the Court of Small Causes had not existed at all. The case cited by Mr. Nihal Chand, namely Sarju Prasad v. Mahadeo Pande 29 Ind. Cas. 996 : 13 A.L.J. 639 : 37 A. 450 is a case of the latter class. On the other hand the case cited by Mr. Girdhari Lal Agarwala, namely Mangal Sen v. Rup Chand 13 A. 324 : A. W. N. (1891) 96 is the case to which the provisions of Section 24, Civil Procedure Code, are applicable. There is a clear distinction between cases of these two classes. In one case the Court which tried the case is seized of it without any order of transfer. In the other it is seized of the case by reason only of an order of transfer. I have already shown that in this, case an order of transfer was made from the Court of Babu Ram Chunder Suksena to the Court of the Additional Munsif of Mainpuri at a time when Babu Ram Chunder Suksena had powers of a Court of Small Causes. This is, therefore, a case governed by Section 24, Civil Procedure Code. My attention has been drawn to another case Sankarama Aiyer v. B. Padmanabha Aiyer 17 Ind. Cas. 425 : 38 M. 25 : 23 M.L.J. 373 : (1912) M.W.N. 1086, which follows the ruling in Mangal Sen v. Rup Chand 13 A. 324 : A. W. N. (1891) 96. Following the ruling in Mangal Sen v. Rup Chand 13 A. 324 : A. W. N. (1891) 96 I hold that no appeal lay to the Court below and that the order of the District Judge was correct. I reject the application with costs.