JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiffs in this case are the owners of an ahata in the city of Cawnpore which contains a number of houses, one of which is occupied by the defendant. The plaintiffs in obedience to an order or notice issued by the Municipal Board of Cawnpore, issued probably under Section 104 of the Municipalities Act, appointed two sweepers and a bhishti to keep the place clean. The plaintiff's case is that all the occupants of the houses, including the defendant, are liable to contribute towards the wages of the sweepers. The present claim is for a sum of Re. 1-5-0. The suit was instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore; but on the objection of the defendant the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court. The Judge of the Court of Small Causes gave no reason for holding that the case was not within the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes, except that it appeared to him to be a suit for enhancement of rent. To my mind it is obviously not a suit for enhancement of rent, and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the Court is unable to suggest that any article of Sch. 2, Provincial Small Cause Court Act could possibly apply to the case except Article 13. He suggests that the suit is one for dues within the meaning of that article. I hold that it is nothing of the kind and that the suit is triable by a Court of Small Causes. The suit was however tried by the Munsif and decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed. The District Judge held that the plaintiffs had no right of action against the defendant and he dismissed the suit. 2. The plaintiffs have filed this second appeal. On the case being called on, an objection was put forward on behalf of the defendant-respondent that the suit being one of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, no second appeal lay. As I have already stated, there can be no doubt that the suit ought to have been tried by a Court of Small Causes. Therefore, it is one of the kind referred to in Section 102 of the CPC. As I have already stated, there can be no doubt that the suit ought to have been tried by a Court of Small Causes. Therefore, it is one of the kind referred to in Section 102 of the CPC. Then it was suggested that if this Court gave effect to this objection, it should set aside the proceedings altogether and direct that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court. It is open to me, no doubt, to treat the memorandum of appeal as an application for revision. 3. But if I do this the suit will be tried by a Court of Small Causes and inevitably there will be an application to this Court under Section 25 of the Prov. Sm. C.C. Act, and this Court will have to decide whether the suit was maintainable. I have heard both sides and it appears to me that it would be waste of time and money to order a fresh trial in this case. It is suggested that the suit is maintainable against the defendant either under Section 69 Section 70 of the Contract Act. It seems to me that neither section applies. I therefore decline to treat this appeal as an application for revision. The appeal is not maintainable. I dismiss it, but make no order as to costs.