JUDGMENT 1. It does not appear to us in this case that there are any merits which should induce us to interfere upon this application, which is mainly based upon the ground that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. No objection of this kind seems to have been taken in the lower Court and from the report which the Jearned Munsif h.as submitted to us, it would appear that no such objection was taken. He says that if such an objection had been taken, it would have been found mentioned in the findings or the judgment as is usually done in other cases. He further points out in his report that it is significant that Bona Charan Nandi, who swore two affidavits on behalf of the petitioners, did not mention this fact in his first affidavit, and on receipt of intimation from Calcutta he swore a second affidavit to that effect". 2. We may point out, further, in this case, the disadvantage to which the plaintiff might be put by the absence of objection as to jurisdiction and the allowance of this application in that, though his claim was for Rs. 156 he abandoned Rs. 156 of that claim in order to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of the Court. In these circumstances, it appears to us that the matter being one of discretion we should not interfere and we accordingly discharge the Rule with costs. As this Rule has been three times argued, we assess the hearing fee at three gold mohurs.