JUDGMENT : RAKIQ, J. This is an application in revision under section 25 of Act IX of 1887 from the decree of the Judge of Small Cause Court at Cawnpore. The only point urged is that the claim in respect of Rs. 298-9-3 has been wrongly decreed, as the claim in respect of that item was barred prior to the institution of the suit. For the opposite party a preliminary objection is taken that the question of limitation is not a proper ground under section 25 of Act IX of 1887. In support of this objection reliance is placed on Sarwan Lal v. Khuban,[1894] I.L.R., 16 All., 476, and Md. Husain v. Badri Prasad,[1895] I.L.R., 17 All., 422. For the applicant the case of Jamna Dat v. Bishnath Singh, [1909] 6 A.L.J.R., 944, is relied upon. It appears that in spite of the rulings in I.L.R 16 and 17 Allahabad this Court has entertained applications under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, both on questions of fact and law including the question of limitation. I therefore disallow the preliminary objection. 2. As to the item of Rs. 298-9-3 objected to by the applicant it is clearly barred on the evidence of the plaintiff's Munib, Dava Ram. The only way in which the opposite party could have successfully recovered this sum would have been if they had proved that the dealings between Sheo Prasad and the opposite party had been in the nature of a mutual, open and current account, in which there had been reciprocal demands between them. The evidence in the case does not show any such dealings between Sheo Prasad and the opposite party. On the contrary the evidence of Daya Ram is to the effect that loans from time to time were advanced to Sheo Prasad. The loans advanced to him were independent loans and cannot be said to have formed parts of a mutual, open and current account. I allow the application and modify the decree of the lower court by decreeing the claim of the opposite party for Rs. 200-5-9 only proportionate amount of costs is allowed to both parties in all courts.