1. The plaintiff, who is now the appellant, brought his suit in the first instance in the Court of Small Causes. The Judge of that Court returned the plaint to him, on the ground that the suit was of a nature which was not triable by the Small Cause Court. The plaintiff then -went to the Civil Court and after trial the Munsif gave him a decree. The defendants then preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge on appeal has held that the case was triable by the Small Cause Court and, therefore, could not be triad by the Civil Court. the result is that the plaintiff has been told by both Courts that it is the other Court that has jurisdiction to try his suit. Ho has now preferred this appeal against the Judge's order directing him to go to the Small Cause Court.
2. On the question whether the suit was of such a nature that it could be tried by the Court of Small Causes, I think the learned Judge in the Court of Appeal was wrong, The acts alleged in the plaint seem to amount to misappropriation, and I do not agree with the Judge's view that the cause of action is based on the promise to make restitution and not on the wrong which the plaintiff reported to the panchiyat.
3. In my opinion the order of the lower Appellate Court directing the plaint to be returned for presentation in the Court of Small Causes must be set aside, and an order passed to the effect that the plaintiff's appeal be beard and decided in accordance with law.
4. The appellant is entitled to his costs in' this Court and in the lower Appellate Court. The hearing fee in this Court is assessed at one gold mohur.
5. I agree.