JUDGMENT : KNOX, J.:— This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Allahabad. The case as laid before the Small Cause Court Judge briefly is that on the 27th of January 1908, the defendants who are the second party in this court took a machine from the Singer Manufacturing Co. on, what is known as, the hire and purchase system. The value of the machine is said to be Rs. 80 and in the plaint it is alleged that Rs. 20 has been paid and the balance which was under the agreement between the parties to be recovered by monthly instalments of Rs. 5 has not been paid. 2. The last date on which, it is said, payment of this monthly instalment was made is put as April 1908. The relief prayed for by the plaintiff was that a decree be passed against the defendants for Rs. 40 rent running from 27th November, 1912 to 27th July, 1913, and for delivery of the machine or for its value together with costs and future interest. In the reply it was contended that the suit was barred by limitation. There were other pleas but for the purpose of this application it is unnecessary to consider them. The court below having found that the case was within its jurisdiction went on to hold that the claim was barred by limitation. The articles which the court below considered were articles barring the claim are articles 48, 49 and 50 of the Limitation Act. Holding that the suit was barred the court below dismissed it. This Court is asked to interfere on the ground that the court below has entirely failed to appreciate the relation existing between the plaintiff and the defendants who had hired the machine and who are in possession of it on behalf of the plaintiff. It is difficult to understand the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge of the court below. In his judgment he says that under clause (d) of the agreement entered into between the parties the owner could terminate the hiring and retake possession of the machine and accessories. He holds that the cause of action accrued when the hirer failed to pay rent in any month in advance. In his judgment he says that under clause (d) of the agreement entered into between the parties the owner could terminate the hiring and retake possession of the machine and accessories. He holds that the cause of action accrued when the hirer failed to pay rent in any month in advance. This failure first took place according to the learned Judge in June 1908 and the suit became barred under article 49 of the Limitation Act with effect from 27th June, 1911. I think the learned Judge has entirely overlooked the conditions of the transaction with regard to this machine. There could not have been any wrongful taking or wrongful detention until there had been some overt act of wrongful taking or some demand made by the company and refusal by the defendants. The mere non-payment of rent would not amount to wrongful taking or wrongful detention. The act of the defendants would appear to fall, if it falls at all, under this article under wrongful detention and that act would only begin on the date when a demand for the machine had been made by the company and refusal by the defendants to deliver it had been set up. This is the view which I take. I am fortified in this conclusion by the view taken under similar circumstances by the Calcutta High Court in Gopal Chandra Bose v. Surrendra Nath Dutt, [1908] 12 C.W.N., 1010. The learned Judges in that case held that the decision on a point of this kind should be in accordance with the decision in Wilkinson v. Verity, [1871] L.R., 6 C.P., 206. The Madras High Court took the same view in Gopalasami Ayyar v. Subramania Sastri, [1911] I.L.R. 35 Mad., 636. They refused to consider the contention raised in that case that mere silence of the defendant amounted to refusal. This case goes further than the present case. By the opposite side I was referred to Ram Singh v. Salig Ram and Kure Singh, [1505] I.L.R., 28 All., 84.. That case really deals with the question of jurisdiction and when a decision in a Small Cause Court case should or should not be interfered with by this Court and not with limitation. I have no doubt that the decision arrived at by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court is not according to law or justice and cannot be supported. I have no doubt that the decision arrived at by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court is not according to law or justice and cannot be supported. I, therefore, think that this is a case in which I should interfere with the decision of the court below. That decision being upon a preliminary point I set it aside and return the case to that court with direction to re-enter it on the file of pending cases and to dispose of it according to law. The second party will pay the costs of the applicant so far as this revision is concerned.