JUDGMENT : Banerji, J. This is a reference made by the District Judge of Benares under section 646B of the Code of Civil Procedure. We must in the first place observe that the learned Judge has not strictly complied with the requirements of the section which directs that the Court shall submit the record to the High Court with a statement of its reasons for considering the opinion of the subordinate Court with respect to the nature of the suit to be erroneous. Such a statement of reasons is not contained in the order of reference of the learned Judge. We have, however, considered the facts of the case. The allegations in the plaint are that there was a partnership between the parties, that an account of the partnership was taken and a balance was struck and admitted to be due, that the defendant promised to pay the amount so found due on account of the plaintiff's share, but that he had not made the payment. The suit was therefore really one for the balance of a partnership account in which a balance had been struck by the parties. Such a suit is not excluded from the cognisance of a Court of Small Causes. In the prayer in the plaint, no doubt, the plaintiff asked for a declaration that “the partnership had been dissolved” and prayed for a decree for Rs. 44-13-0 “or whatever amount may be declared proper by the Court.” This was, as the Munsif pointed out in his judgment, apparently done with a view to oust the Small Cause Court of its jurisdiction. Upon the allegations in the plaint it was not necessary for the plaintiff to ask for a declaration that the partnership had been dissolved, and this part of the claim may be treated as surplusage. As we have already said, the plaintiff's allegation was that the partnership had ceased to exist, that an account had been taken and that a sum of Rs. 44-13-0 had been found due to the plaintiff and defendant had promised to pay it. Having regard to these allegations we must look to the real nature of the claim, which was clearly one cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. That Court should have entertained the suit. 44-13-0 had been found due to the plaintiff and defendant had promised to pay it. Having regard to these allegations we must look to the real nature of the claim, which was clearly one cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. That Court should have entertained the suit. We accordingly set aside the order of the Court of Small Causes directing the plaint to be returned and order that Court to take back the plaint and try the case according to law.