JUDGMENT Sir Shah Muhammad Sulaiman, J. - This is an application in revision from an order dated the 18th of May, 1929, passed by the Judge of the court of small causes at Bulandshahr setting aside an ex parte decree. This order was followed by another order of the court below, dated the 22nd of June, 1929, returning the plaint for presentation to the court of the Munsif at Khurja. 2. It appears that at the time when the decree was passed the Subordinate Judge of Bulandshahr had the small cause court powers and passed the decree as the Judge of small cause court of Bulandshahr on the 20th of December, 1926. At that time Khurja was within the jurisdiction of that court. By the time that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on the 5th of December, 1928, the Judge of small cause court of Bulandshahr ceased to have jurisdiction within the area of Khurja munsifi. He therefore no longer had jurisdiction to try small cause court cases arising in that area. It follows that u/s 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, when the court ceased to have jurisdiction in relation to the case, all proceedings in relation to it even after the decree had to be taken in the court which, if the suit out of which the proceeding had arisen was about to be instituted, would have jurisdiction to try the suit. Such a court in the present case would be the munsif's court at Khurja. It is therefore clear that the Judge of small cause court at Bulandshahr had no longer any jurisdiction to dispose of this litigation. This point has been conceded by the learned Judge in his subsequent order dated the 22nd of June, 1929, and he has accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The position therefore is anomalous. The learned Judge has held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case and yet he has interfered in so far as he has set aside the ex parte decree and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court for trial de novo. If therefore there were no bar to my interference in revision, this would be a fit case for interference and removal of this anomaly. If therefore there were no bar to my interference in revision, this would be a fit case for interference and removal of this anomaly. Section 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act applies, but by virtue of the provisions contained in Sub-clause (2) of the section it is subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. u/s 21 of the CPC no objection as to the place of suing can be entertained by the revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and there has been a consequent failure of justice. The principle underlying that section would undoubtedly apply to an application for setting aside an ex parte decree, by virtue of the provisions of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is an admitted fact ' that no objection as to jurisdiction was raised by the applicant in his objections, dated the 23rd of February, 1929, which he filed against the application for restoration and such objection was only raised on the 22nd of June, 1929, in argument before the order returning the plaint was passed. If therefore the objection is substantially one as to the place of suing, I have no power of interference in the case. On the other hand, if the objection as to jurisdiction is of a different character, then Section 21 would not be applicable. 3. The munsif of Khurja had small cause court powers only up to Rs. 250, but the valuation of the present suit was in excess of that figure. Thus if the present suit were now to be instituted it would have to be instituted in the court of the munsif at Khurja and not in the court of small causes at Khurja. There would be a right of appeal to the District Judge. On the other hand, the application has been disposed of by the court of small causes at Bulandshahr, which gives no power of appeal from the order. It therefore seems to me that the objection as to the jurisdiction of the court is not one merely of the place of suing but as to the nature of the court itself. On the other hand, the application has been disposed of by the court of small causes at Bulandshahr, which gives no power of appeal from the order. It therefore seems to me that the objection as to the jurisdiction of the court is not one merely of the place of suing but as to the nature of the court itself. A right of appeal is a substantive right and the applicant is entitled to urge that a court which has no jurisdiction should not take up the matter and dispose of it itself, depriving the applicant of his right of appeal. I am therefore of opinion that although this objection was taken in the court below at a late stage in the proceedings, it ought to be entertained in revision as the question involved is one of jurisdiction, as to which there can be no estoppel by conduct of parties. But the delay in taking the objection can be taken into account in awarding costs. I accordingly allow this revision and, setting aside the order of the court below, dated the 18th of May, 1929, direct that the application for restoration. be returned to the judgment-debtor for presentation to the proper court. The effect of this order will of course he to set aside the order of the 22nd of June, 1929, automatically. The munsif at Khurja will dispose of the application for restoration on its merits.