JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the CPC. The facts which have led to the making of this application are as follows:— 2. The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit in the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Agra for the recovery of Rs. 177-9-7 on partnership account. The plaint was returned by the learned Judge of Small Cause Court for presentation to proper Court, on the ground that under Article 29, clause (b), of Act IX of 1887 such a suit was not maintainable in his Court. The plaint was then presented by the plaintiff-applicant to the Munsif of Agra. One of the pleas urged by the defendants in their written statement was that the plaintiff should sue for dissolution of partnership. 3. The plaintiff amended his plaint by adding a paragraph to it to the effect this partnership between him and the defendants had been dissolved on the 15th of March 1910, and asked for an additional relief, namely, that in Base the Court found that the partnership had not been dissolved, a decree for dissolution of partnership be passed. After amendment of the plaint the Munsif rejected it, holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. On appeal the learned District Judge agreed with the first Court and upheld its order. The plaintiff has come up in revision under Section 115 of the CPC and contends that the Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents to the effect that no revision lies. It is said that the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal and the mere fact that he came to an erroneous decision according to the plaintiff-applicant, does not entitle the latter to come up in revision here. I do not think that the objection of the respondents is sound. The want of jurisdiction is not the only ground upon which an aggrieved party may apply for revision. The plaintiff-applicant does not deny that the learned Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal but says that he exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as he misapprehended the nature of the plaintiff's claim and the provisions of Article 29 of Act IX of 1887. 5. The plaintiff-applicant does not deny that the learned Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal but says that he exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as he misapprehended the nature of the plaintiff's claim and the provisions of Article 29 of Act IX of 1887. 5. I have read the plaint carefully and it appears to me that the amendment made by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif did not render the claim exclusively triable by the Small Cause Court or cost the jurisdiction of the Muusif. It is true that the amended paragraph of the plaint contains the allegation of the dissolution of partnership on a certain date, but it is nowhere stated that a balance of partnership accounts was struck by the parties or their agents on or after the dissolution of partnership. The claim still remains for an account of partnership transactions, or for dissolution of partnership and for an account of partnership transactions. In either case the claim is one which should be heard by a regular Court, and not by a Small Cause Court. The learned Judge seems to have taken the claim to be for the balance of partnership accounts which has been struck by the parties or their agents, as mentioned in Article 29(c) of Act IX of 1887. The language of the plaint shows clearly that the claim was not for the recovery of the balance of partnership accounts struck by the parties or their agents. In my opinion the suit of the plaintiff is within the jurisdiction of the Munsif and should be entertained by him. As the order of the learned Judge was made under a misapprehension of the nature of the claim of the plaintiff-applicant it is liable to revision. The preliminary objection for the respondents fails and the application is allowed. The order of the Court below is set aside and the Munsif will receive the plaint and try the case according to law. Costs of this application are allowed to the applicant.