Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
1. Several cases have been quoted before me (by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and by the learned Vakil for the respondents) on the question of the scope of Article 31 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. As said in Varadarajulu Chettiar v. Pattra Narayanaswamy Chetty 20 Ind. Cas. 518 : 24 M.L.J. 693 : 14 M.L.T. 46 : (1913) M.W.N. 879, 'The decided cases are perhaps not altogether reconcilable.' I do not intend, therefore, to go through the cases. The above case of Varadarajulu Chettiar v. Pattra Narayanaswamy Chetty 20 Ind. Cas. 518 : 24 M.L.J. 693 : 14 M.L.T. 46 : (1913) M.W.N. 879 (16th April 1913) seems to be the latest decision by a Bench of this Court which has carefully considered the question. That case approves of the following dicta found in Kailas Chandra Mandal v. Kiranenda Ghosh 10 Ind. Cas. 883 and Chidrie Kristappa v. Siddamsetti Yamanappa 13 Ind. Cas. 159 : (1912) M.W.N. 36 : 11 M.L.T. 13 'If, in order to grant relief to the plaintiff, it is necessary to take accounts, the suit is one for an account within the meaning of Article 31 although the plaintiff may have chosen to put a definite money value upon his claim.' It must depend upon the relation in which the parties stand to each other and the nature of the investigation required to afford relief to the plaintiff.' 'Article 31 applies to cases where the relationship of the parties is such that one of them is bound to render accounts to the other. In the present case the plaint clearly makes out that accounts had not been settled between the principal and the agent. In fact so far as another settled account between the parties is concerned, there is a note added at the end of the plaint in this suit that a separate suit was going to be filed (that separate suit was brought 8 days afterwards and filed with this suit and Civil Revision Petition No. 172 of 1915 has been filed against the decision therein). The distinction made by the plaintiff himself between the two claims shows that the plaintiff knew that 'the nature of the investigation required to afford relief' to him in the present suit made it 'necessary to take accounts.'
2. I, therefore, set aside the decision of the Subordinate Judge passed in Small Cause Side of his Court and order the return of the plaint to be presented to the Court having jurisdiction. As the question of jurisdiction was not raised in the lower Court the petitioner will pay the respondents' costs in this Court. The costs in the lower Court will be provided for in the original suit commenced from the filing of the plaint in the proper Court.
3. There is nothing arguable in Civil Revision Petition No. 172 of 1915 which will be dismissed with costs.