JUDGMENT Bajpai, J.
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by him for the recovery of a sum of money less than Rs. 500. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. There is therefore a preliminary objection that no second appeal lies because the suit was of a nature cognizable by a Court of small causes. The contention of the learned advocate for the plaintiff-appellant, however is that the suit ought to have lain in a Small Cause Court and the entire proceedings are vitiated and the proper order that I should pass in the present case is to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
2. In order to appreciate the contention of the appellant and the preliminary, objection of the respondent it is necessary to state a few facts. The suit was filed in the Court of the Honorary Munsif at Shamshabad which Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is contended by the plaintiff that although he filed this suit in the Court of the Honorary Munsif at Shamshabad he should have filed it in the Court of small causes at Farrukhabad. He has not been able to support his contention by a reference to any enactment or notification except Section 16, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which says that save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force a. suit cognizable by a Court of small causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of small causes by which the suit is triable. I shall assume for the purposes of this appeal that there is a Court of small causes at Farrukhabad which might have had territorial jurisdiction over the present suit, but Section 7, Clause 4 Honorary Munsifs Act. provides that nothing in Section 16, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887, shall be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of Honorary Munsifs or Benches under the Honorary Munsifs Act.
3. It would therefore appear that the suit was rightly instituted in the Court of the Honorary Munsif at Shamshabad and there was nothing to prevent that Court from proceeding to dispose of the suit. The learned Honorary Munsif however wrote to the learned District Judge that as he was related to one of the parties he would not like to try the suit. The learned District Judge then under Section 24, Civil P.C., which is applicable to the Honorary Munsifs Act by reason of Section 9 of the said Act transferred the suit from the Court of the Honorary Munsif to the Court of the Munsif at Kaimganj. It is said that the learned District Judge ought to have transfused the suit to the Court of Small Causes at Farrukhabad but it was not obligatory for the learned District Judge to do so and he could transfer the suit to any Court Subordinate to himself and competent to entertain the same. The suit was therefore of a nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court, but it was heard by a Munsif against whose decision an appeal did lie, but the decision of lower appellate Court is not appealable by way of a second appeal to this Court under Section 102, Civil P.C.
4. The result is that the preliminary objection is sound and there is no force in the contention advanced by learned, counsel for the appellant that the suit ought to have been instituted in the Small Cause Court and I should return the plaint for presentation to that Court. Moreover the objection comes with a very bad grace from the mouth of the appellant who himself filed the suit in the wrong Court and invitee that Court to give a decision in his favour. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is a finding of fact which is fatal to the appellant's claim the finding being that the amount of the debt was paid up by the defendant. There is no force in this appeal and dismiss it with costs.