JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances: One Hazari Lal obtained a consignment of treacle, to pay for and take delivery of which he borrowed money from Dulare Lal. The understanding was that the treacle was to be sold and the money advanced by Dulare Lal was to be realized in the first instance from the price it may fetch; and the balance, if any, was payable to Hazari Lal. Hazari Lal, alleging that there was a balance of Rs. 841-10-3 due to him after satisfying Dulare Lal's debt, instituted the present suit against the defendant in the Court of the Munsif of Farrukhabad. Dulare Lal on his part alleged that the price realized at the sale was not sufficient to pay the amount due to him from the plaintiff and that a sum of Rs. 308-5-6 was due to him from the plaintiff. He brought a suit to recover this amount in the Court of Small Causes. The suit of Dulare Lal was transferred from the Court of Small Causes to that of the Munsif for trial along with the cross suit which had been filed by Hazari Lal. The two suits were tried together. The Munsif came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 308-5-6 was due to Dulare Lal. He therefore decreed Dulare Lal's suit and as a result of his finding he dismissed the suit of Hazari Lal. Now the suit of Dalare Lal was a suit of the nature of suits triable by a Court of Small Causes and it was filed in that Court. Under Section 24, Cl. 4 of the CPC the suit still retained its character as a Small Cause Court suit though tried by the Munsif, and the decree passed in that case therefore was final and not open to appeal, and was not in fact appealed against. 2. Hazajri Lal however filed an appeal against the decree in the suit for Rs. 841-10-3 which he had instituted. In that suit the Court came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 898-5-0 (including interest) was due to Dulare Lal, and after setting off against it the sum of Rs. 308-5-6 for which a decree had been obtained in the Small Cause Court suit, it gave a decree for the balance. 841-10-3 which he had instituted. In that suit the Court came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 898-5-0 (including interest) was due to Dulare Lal, and after setting off against it the sum of Rs. 308-5-6 for which a decree had been obtained in the Small Cause Court suit, it gave a decree for the balance. The defendants' contention in this case is that an appeal ought to have been preferred to the Court below from the decree passed in the Small Cause Court suit and as no appeal was preferred the said decree operated as res judicata and it was not open to the Court in appeal to go behind it and determine that a sum of Rs. 898-5-0 was due to the plaintiff and he relies for that purpose upon the analogy of the case in which decrees had been passed in suits tried together, but in which all the decrees passed had not been appealed against. As I have already observed the Small Cause Court suit which had been transferred to the Munsif retained its character as such. It was not open to appeal. It was tried by the Munsif only as a Court of Small Cause, and his decision in that case could not operate as res judicata for purposes of the other suit for Rs. 341-10-3, which the Court of Small Causes was not competent to try. The plea has no force and I dismiss the appeal with costs.