JUDGMENT Nasim Ali, J. - This is an application in revision under sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against an order of the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah, dated 8th March, 1935, returning a plaint filed by the Petitioner in that Court for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that that Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Petitioner instituted the suit for determination of the compensation under sec. 523 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The amount claimed is Rs. 4700. The only point for determination is whether the Court of the Small Causes at Sealdah has jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. Sec. 523 (1) is in these terms:-- Where, in any case not provided for in sec. 522, the Corporation are, or any Municipal officer or servant or any other person is, required by the Act or by any rule or bye-law made thereunder to pay any expenses or any compensation, the amount to be so paid and, if necessary, the apportionment of the same shall, in case of dispute, be determined by the Court of Small Causes having local jurisdiction, or by High Court, as the case may be, on application being made to it for the purpose at any time within one year from the date when such expenses or compensation first become claimable. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner contends that the words " as the case may be " in the section refer to local jurisdiction and consequently the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah has jurisdiction. 4. Now in sec. 616 and 617 of the old Act (Act III of 1899) the words " having local jurisdiction " were not mentioned after the words '; the Court of Small Causes." In the corresponding sections of the present Act (sec. 522 and 523) these words have been inserted. In the old Act as well as in the present Act the Court of Small Causes means the Presidency Court as well as the Provincial Court (see secs. 623 and 624 of the old Act and secs. 528 and 529 of the present Act). Under the old sec. 616, the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes was excluded if the amount of compensation claimed exceeded Rs. 2000. In such case the High Court had jurisdiction and its jurisdiction was not local. 623 and 624 of the old Act and secs. 528 and 529 of the present Act). Under the old sec. 616, the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes was excluded if the amount of compensation claimed exceeded Rs. 2000. In such case the High Court had jurisdiction and its jurisdiction was not local. In cases coming under the old sec. 617, the claims were cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, irrespective of their value and the jurisdiction was local. Sec. 522 of the present Act which corresponds to sec. 616 retains the division of jurisdiction between the Court of Small Causes and the High Court on the pecuniary basis while sec. 523 which corresponds to sec. 617 takes away the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes and divides the jurisdiction between the Court of Small Causes and the High Court. The question is on what basis this division has been made. I am inclined to think that the words " having local jurisdiction " have been inserted in secs. 522 and 523 to make it clear that the jurisdiction of the Presidency Court of Small Causes and the Provincial Court of Small Causes is local, while that of the High Court is not. In other words, as between different Courts of Small Causes i.e., Presidency and Provincial, the jurisdiction is local whereas between the Court of Small Causes on the one hand and the High Court on the other the jurisdiction depends only upon the value of the claim. If the words "as the case may be " refer to local jurisdiction and not to pecuniary jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Presidency Court of Small Causes would be wholly excluded. The object of sec. 523 in conferring jurisdiction on High Court in cases coming under that section was not to oust the jurisdiction of the Presidency Court of Small Causes altogether but to limit it. The words " the Court of Small Causes" include the Presidency Court of Small Causes also. I am therefore unable to hold that the words " as the case may be " refer to local jurisdiction. The words " having local jurisdiction " refer to the Court of Small Causes only. The words " as the case may be " refer to the pecuniary jurisdiction. The rule is accordingly discharged with costs--hearing fee one gold mohur. Henderson, J. 5. The words " having local jurisdiction " refer to the Court of Small Causes only. The words " as the case may be " refer to the pecuniary jurisdiction. The rule is accordingly discharged with costs--hearing fee one gold mohur. Henderson, J. 5. The question for determination in this Rule is the meaning of the words " as the case may be in sec. 523 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the Petitioner contends that they refer to the local jurisdiction, whereas on behalf of the Opposite Party it is contended that they refer to pecuniary jurisdiction. 6. There are two difficulties of a serious nature in the way of the Petitioner. In the first place the words "shall be determined by the Court of Small Causes having local jurisdiction" make sufficient provision for every conceivable kind of case and it would be useless to add anything more, if the section merely deals with local jurisdiction. In the second place if the section relates to local jurisdiction only, it is quite obvious that the Presidency Small Cause Court must be excluded altogether. So that all cases within the original jurisdiction of the Court would be tried here and the others in the Sealdah Small Cause Court. I do not think that the Petitioner can in any way get over these difficulties by the f act that a specified sum of money is referred to in sec. 522 for the simple reason that that section enhances the ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction of the Provincial Small Cause Court. There is no such provision in sec. 523. From the use of the words "as the case may be " it is clear that the reference is to pecuniary jurisdiction. I, therefore, agree that this Rule must be discharged.