JUDGMENT Rampini, C.J. - This is a reference under sec. 646B by the District Judge of Jessore. The facts are that a money suit in which the claim was for Rs. 70 was instituted in the Court of Babu H. L. Sinha, Officiating Munsif of Bongong who had Small Couse Court powers up to Rs. 50. Before the trial of the suit commenced the [officer for whom] Babu H. L. Sinha was acting returned, and Babu H. L. Sinha was transferred. The substantive Munsif of Bongong bad Small Cause Court powers up to Rs. 100. Accordingly relying on the provisions of sec 16 of Act IX of 1887, which bars the trial of a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes 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, he tried the suit as a Small Cause Court suit. 2. The Defendants against whom a decree was given, applied to the District Judge in revision. The District Judge has referred the case to us. He relies on the provisions of sec. 32 (2) of Act IX of 1887; and the cases of Hari Kammaya v. Hari Venkya I. L. R 26 Mad. 212 (1903), Kanan Nambiar v. Anantan Nambiar I. L. R. 29 Mad. 124 (1905) and Shambhu Dhanaji v. Ramvithu I. L. R. 28 Bom. 244 (1903). 3. Sec 32 (2) provides that the jurisdiction of a Court before which a suit la Instituted is not affected by a change in the powers of the Court after the institution of the suit. 4. The substance of the rulings relied on by the Judge is, as he says, that a case started as an ordinary money suit cannot be tried subsequently as a Small Cause Court suit, although the Court in which the suit was instituted may subsequently be invested with sufficient powers to try the suit by the Small Cause Court procedure. The Judge goes on to say :- The present case is not exactly parallel to the cases in Hari Kammaya v. Hari Venkaya I. L. R. 26 Mad. 212 (1903) and Shambhu Dkanayi v. Ramavithu. I. L. R. 23 Bom. 244 (1903) which contemplate the extension of the powers of the same officer during the pendency of the suit. The Judge goes on to say :- The present case is not exactly parallel to the cases in Hari Kammaya v. Hari Venkaya I. L. R. 26 Mad. 212 (1903) and Shambhu Dkanayi v. Ramavithu. I. L. R. 23 Bom. 244 (1903) which contemplate the extension of the powers of the same officer during the pendency of the suit. " The case in Kanan Nambiar v. Anantan Nambiar I. L. R. 29 Mad. 124 (1905), however, refers to the transfer of an original money suit to another officer, whose powers under the Small Cause Courts Act were sufficient to enable him to deal with the case by summary procedure. It was ruled that having been instituted as a regular money suit, it must remain such and be tried under the ordinary procedure. The ruling in Hari Kammaya v. Hari Venhaya I. L. R. 26 Mad. 212 (1903) is cited and followed. The principal ground for the decision in Hari Kamaya v. Hari Venkaya I. L. R. 26 Mad. 212 (1903) appears to be that the parties should not be deprived of their power of appeal, which they have so long as the suit is dealt with under the ordinary procedure. The same principle will hold good, whatever the changing circumstances be, e. g.; the transfer from one Court to another, or the increase in the power of the same officer during the suit, or the change in the officer presiding in one and the same Court. If this be so, then in the present case, the Defendants have been deprived of their right of appeal by the procedure adopted in disposing of the case. It seems to me therefore that the Munsif, 1st Court, Bongong, was wrong in disposing of the case under Small Cause Court procedure and I accordingly submit the record under sec. 646B of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. We consider that the views of the District Judge are correct. The word used in sec. It seems to me therefore that the Munsif, 1st Court, Bongong, was wrong in disposing of the case under Small Cause Court procedure and I accordingly submit the record under sec. 646B of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. We consider that the views of the District Judge are correct. The word used in sec. 32 (3) is " Court." As interpreted, and we think correctly Interpreted, by the rulings cited by the District Judge, it lays down that when a case is instituted in a Court which has certain powers, it must be tried by that Court irrespectively of any subsequent increase in those powers The present suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Bongong, when that Court had only Small Cause Court powers up to a limit of Rs. 50. By the return of the substantive Munsif of Bongong, the powers of the Court were increased to Rs. 100. But under sec. 32 (2), we think the suit should have been tried, as if the powers of the Court remained the same as they were when the suit was instituted. 6. We must therefore set aside the decree of the Munsif of Bongong and remand the suit to him for retrial. 7. We return the record to the District Judge of Jessore. Sharfuddin, J. I agree. I consider the District Judge is right not only on the authority of the rulings he has quoted, but also under the provisions of 33 of Act IX of 1887. (Provincial Small Cause Courts Act). Under this section a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes is to be deemed to be different from the Court exercising ordinary jurisdiction in suits of a civil nature which are not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. In the present case the substantive Munsif exercises the functions of an ordinary Civil Court as well as those of a Court of Small Causes. His Court of Small Causes being different according to sec. 33A from his Court of ordinary jurisdiction, it seems to me he has no jurisdiction to transfer suits from his file of Small Causes to that of the civil suits of his ordinary jurisdiction and vice versa.