JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J.
1. This is a defendants' appeal. It arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of repairs and damages, instituted in the court of Munsif, Allahabad. The suit was valued at less than Rs. 2,000/-. Before evidence in the suit could begin the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 came into force. Under it suits for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages became small causes in nature. Section 9 of the Act provided for the transfer of such suits pending in regular courts to the court of small causes provided the recording of evidence had not begun. In the present case the recording of evidence commenced after the coming into force of the Amending Act No objection that the suit should be transferred and heard by the court of small causes was in fact taken during the trial of the suit The trial proceeded in the court of Munsif and ultimately the suit was decreed. Aggrieved, the defendant went up in appeal. The learned District Judge repelled the various submissions raised in support of it and dismissed it. The defendant then filed a second appeal in this Court.
2. At the hearing of the second appeal a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that no second appeal lay in view of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Single Judge, however, heard the appeal on the question that the decree passed by the trial Court was without jurisdiction and a nullity. He found that conflicting inferences could be drawn from different Full Bench decisions of this Court, and in view of the importance of the question involved in the context of the new Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972, it was a fit case in which the appeal should be heard by a larger Full Bench, the learned Judge referred the appeal itself to a larger Bench. That is how the appeal has come up before this Full Bench.
3. At the commencement of the hearing we asked learned counsel for the appellant to satisfy us whether the second appeal was competent.
4. Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides--
"No second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, 'when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed one thousand rupees."
5. It cannot be gainsaid that the present suit became small causes in nature after the coming into force of the Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972, It is true that under Section 9 of the Amending Act such suit was, triable by the Small Cause Court and was liable to be transferred to it from the regular side, but nonetheless, it continued to retain its nature, namely, small causes. In that event Section 102 which applies to suits of the nature of small causes but which are tried on the regular side, is fully applicable. Under it no second appeal lies.
The present second appeal is clearly in competent.
6. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the memorandum of appeal be permitted to be converted into a civil revision. This is a discretionary matter. We find that the defendant appellant did not inform the trial court that it has lost jurisdiction to continue to try the suit because of the coming into force of Section 9 of the Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972, otherwise the trial Court would have immediately transferred the case to the relevant Small Cause Court. There is no evidence to show that the defendant was not aware of the coming into force of the Amending Act. Under the circumstances the position is that the defendant voluntarily had a trial on the merits before a, regular court. The procedure before a regular court is more detailed. Further, the defendant has had another innings on the merits before the lower appellate court. Under the circumstances we do not think that this is a fit case where the prayer for conversion of the appeal into a revision should be sustained. We, therefore, decline to convert the appeal into a revision.
7. After the hearing was over, learned counsel for the appellant submitted a note containing references of four authorities. Having perused them we find that they are not relevant or material on the question of the maintainability of the appeal.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as incompetent. The parties will bear their own costs.