JUDGMENT : 1. The suit out of which this application has arisen was brought by one Binda. Binda had contracted with the East Indian Railway Company, defendants in the Court of first instance, for the carriage of grain and seed from Cawnpore to Jagganath Ghat via Howrah. He paid for the conveyance of several consignments certain sums of money based upon a special rate, which was provided by the Company for the carriage of grain and seeds and which is known by the technical term of maund rate as opposed to another rate known as waggon rate. Apparently after he had paid the money, he discovered that the charge would have been lower if he had contracted with the Railway Company to carry consignments of grain, at the rate known as waggon rate. 2. He accordingly brought the present suit, asking for a refund of the amount which had been overcharged so far as a portion of the line of the defendant Railway Company was concerned. The consignments had to travel over the Railway of the defendant Company and also over the Eastern Bengal Railway. For the carriage of the consignments over that portion which belonged to the Eastern Bengal Railway he made no claim. He sued in the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore. That Court granted him a decree in part for Rs. 165-9-6, out of the claim which had been laid at Rs. 214-1-11. It is now contended before me that the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit, and the Railway Company base this contention upon a decision of this Court in Amolak Ram v. Bombay, Baroda & Central India Railway Company (High Court Decisions on Indian Railway Cases by Tiiuvenkata Chariar, page 477). In answer the learned Vakil who appears for Binda refers me to the change which has taken place in Section 20 of the CPC. There is no doubt that Section is consider-ably changed from what-it was in the former Code of Civil Procedure. The portion which concerns the present case is clause (c) of Section 20 of the present Code. In answer the learned Vakil who appears for Binda refers me to the change which has taken place in Section 20 of the CPC. There is no doubt that Section is consider-ably changed from what-it was in the former Code of Civil Procedure. The portion which concerns the present case is clause (c) of Section 20 of the present Code. In the old Code clause (a), Section 17, ran thus: “The cause of action arises.” In the present Code the words now used are: “The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” The case of Amolak Ram v. Bombay, Baroda & Central India Railway Company was a case decided under the Code which was in force in the year 1888. Looking to the argument and reasoning given in that judgment, I am of opinion that case would have been differently decided if it had been a case brought under the new Code. I find that the Court at Cawnpore had jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as the cause of action, at any rate in part, had arisen in Cawnpore. This being so, the plea of want of jurisdiction fails. 3. With reference to the second contention that the plaintiff is not entitled to alter the contract which he originally made with the defendant company, as this is a Small Cause Court case, I am not prepared to interfere. The application is dismissed with costs.