1. In this case a Rule waft issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsiff of Bhola, 1st Court, exercising Small Cause Court powers dated the 18th December 1925 dismissing a suit for money brought by the petitioners should not be set aside upon certain grounds stated in the petition to this Court. The suit in question was instituted on the 12th February 1925 and was for realization of a sum of Rs. 195-1-0 upon a bond alleged to have been executed by the defendant, now the opposite party, It appears that from that date until the 18th December 1925 the suit in question was treated as an ordinary money suit. The written statement was filed on the; 8th April 1925 and issues were settled on the 30th April 1925. After that there; followed a number of adjournments Subsequently another Munsiff took charge of the Court and on She 18th December 1925 that officer was invested: with Small Cause Court powers Up to Rs. 250. Thereafter ho passed an order transferring the suit in question, in which no evidence had up to then been, recorded, from his ordinary file to his Small Cause Court file and disposed of the case under the Small Cause Court procedure and dismissed it as already stated. The plaintiffs then moved this Court and obtained the present Rule. Three points have been urged by the learned vakil who appears on their behalf : firstly that the Court below acted without jurisdiction and with material irregularity in disposing of the case summarily as a Small Cause Court suit instead of as a regular suit to the great inconvenience and prejudice of the petitioners; secondly, that the learned Munsiff acted without jurisdiction and with material irregularity in disposing, of the case summarily as a Small Cause Court suit inasmuch as the suit was regarded by the parties as a. money suit from the 12fch February up to the 18th December 1925 without the consent of the petitioners and to their great, inconvenience and prejudice; and thirdly and lastly that in view of the fact that the plaintiffs proved their case and in view of the finding that the defendant 'looks and speaks like an idiot,' the learned Munsiff erred in law and acted with material irregularity in dismissing the suit. The first two points may be taken together. Reference has been made to Sub-section (2) of Section 32, P.S.C.C. Act and also to cases Mahima Chandra Sirdar v. Kali Mandol  12 C.W.N. 167 and Hari Kamayya v. Hari Venkayya  26 Mad. 212 (F.B.), and it has been argued that for the purpose of jurisdiction it is necessary to look to the state of things at the date when the suit was instituted, and that the fact that the Munsiff was subsequently vested with Small Cause Court powers up to Rs. 250 did not confer upon him jurisdiction to try the suit under that procedure. I do not think that there is any substance in this contention. Apparently Sub-section 2 of Section 32 is applicable to the case where the same officer who originally entertained the. suit is subsequently vested with Small Cause Court powers or with increased powers, and the cases which have been referred to are cases of that description, where, for example, an officer having Small Causes Court powers of a similar denomination is subsequently empowered with greater powers.
2. Further more it is to be observed in this case that no objection was made by the plaintiffs at the time when the suit was transferred from the ordinary file to the Small Cause Court file. The statements which have been made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in this connexion have been traversed in para. 3 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party. It is stated therein that when the presiding Judge transferred the case from the ordinary file to the Small Cause Court file neither of the parties or their pleaders raised any sort of objection to the said transfer of the case from one file to another and that both the parties tendered their respective evidence to the Court and the case was fully argued by the pleaders of both the sides. Having regard to this fact I do not think that this Court ought now in revision to entertain the objection which was not raised at the time of the trial. It seems clear that the parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and that the decision having been unfavourable to the plaintiff-petitioners they now seek in their present application to find some defect in the proceedings relating to the trial. This Court has on numerous occasions declined to interfere in revision where it has been shown that no objection was taken and that the parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court: Srimati Parameswari Dassi v. Jagat Chandra Das  19 C.W.N. 900. In the case just referred to their Lordships quoted with approval certain remarks made in another case to which they referred.
We are not in favour of assisting parties to set aside a decree upon points which they did not raise before the Court which tried the matters in issue and of which they gave no notice to opposite party.
3. I do not think, therefore, that it can be said that there has been any error of law in this case having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The Munsiff who subsequently took charge of the Court was empowered with Small Cause Court powers up to Rs. 250 and he therefore had jurisdiction to try this suit the value of which was within that amount. He exercised that jurisdiction, and I am not prepared to say that any error of law has been committed which renders interference necessary.
4. The third point may be briefly dismissed as it clearly involves a question of fact and I am not disposed to go into the facts of the case.
5. In my judgment no case has been made out for interference in revision and the Rule is accordingly discharged with costs. I assess the hearing-fee at one gold mohur.