1. The petitioner in this case is a Company known as the Russa Engineering Works, Limited. The suit to which the Rule relates was brought by the petitioner as plaintiff against the defendant, a moulding Mistry. The plaint set up an agreement between the Company and the defendant, whereby the Company was to supply raw materials and the defendant was to execute moulding and casting work to be paid for at certain stipulated rates, subject to deduction for bad workmanship and subject also to the return at the end of each month of all such materials or metals as the defendant did not use for the work he had to perform. The learned Small Cause Court Judge returned the plaint on the ground that it involved intricate and minute points of account of the materials supplied to the defendant and the instruments prepared by him. I gather that in his opinion the suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. This Rule was issued on the defendant to show cause why the order returning the plaint should not be set aside on certain grounds stated in the petition, one of which was that the Court below was wrong in treating the suit as a suit on an account. The attention of the learned Small Cause Court Judge does not appear to have been drawn to the decision in Kshetra Nath Bhuiya (Banerjee) v. Kali Dasi Dasi 41 Ind. Cas. 929 : 21 C.W.N. 784 : 27 C.L.J. 96, the principle of which appears to apply to the present case. I have not bad the advantage of hearing any learned Pleader for the opposite party, but my conclusion is that the present is not a suit for an account. The Rule must accordingly be made absolute. The order returning the plaint is set aside and the case is sent back to the Small Cause Court Judge to be disposed of in accordance with law. The costs of this Rule will abide the result, the hearing fee being assessed at two gold mohurs.