JUDGMENT Ganga Nath, J. - This is an application in revision by Kishan Lal Plaintiff against the order of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Agra returning the Applicant's plaint for presentation to the proper Court. 2. The Applicant brought a suit against Ram Singh, the opposite patty, on the basis of a bond in the Small Cause Court, Agra. The defendant contended that he was actually residing in Mainpuri and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction. The learned Judge has found in his favour and as already stated, ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. 3. There is no doubt that the defendant's ancestral home is in the Agra district, but he is in Government service and at the time the suit was brought, was stationed in Mainpuri. The defendant is an agriculturist and he relied on the provisions of Section 7(a) of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. Section 7(a) lays down: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, every suit for recovering an unsecured loan in which the defendant, or, where there are several defendants, any of the defendants, is an agriculturist, shall be instituted and tried in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction: (a) the agriculturist defendant, or any of the agriculturist defendants, where there are more than one such defendants, actually and voluntarily resides. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the Applicant that as the defendant has his ancestral home in Agra district, he should be deemed to be "actually and voluntarily" residing in the Agra district. This argument is without force. The defendant is stationed in Mainpuri and is actually residing there. He is not residing in his ancestral home in the Agra district. In Abdul Rahman v. Ajudhia 1892 AWN 115 one A.R. was Kotwal at Mirzapur and for purposes of his duty in Mirzapur, had hired a house there in which he and his wife lived. His home or family residence, however, was in Bhadohi, a pargana within the Family Domains of the Maharaja of Benares. It was held: In our opinion a man who hires a house and lives in it so as to be able to attend to his duties as a police officer must be said to actually residing in the place where the house is. 5. It was held: In our opinion a man who hires a house and lives in it so as to be able to attend to his duties as a police officer must be said to actually residing in the place where the house is. 5. In Kishori Lal v. Ram Sunder (1921) 19 ALJ 822, it was observed: The learned Judge was clearly right in holding (indeed, there is no objection taken to it) that the mere fact that the ancestral home of persons who are really residing outside the jurisdiction was within the jurisdiction did not give jurisdiction. 6. A similar view was taken in P.R.M.P.S. Sobramonian Chetty v. Maung Po Tha (1911) 11 Ind. Cas. 851. 7. Learned Counsel foe the Applicant relies on Abdul Hasan and Another Vs. Khalil Ullah, AIR 1937 All 761 . There the defendants carried on business in Cawnpore. They were agriculturists and residents of Barabanki district. It was held: The fact that the defendants carried on some business in Cawnpore or did some trade could not affect the mandatory provisions of Section 7 Agriculturists' Relief Act. The cardinal question for the decision of the point of jurisdiction raised by the defendants was, where did the defendants actually and voluntarily reside. On this point there was no conflict of testimony and it was admitted on all the hands that defendants who were agriculturists were residents of Barabanki district. 8. There was nothing to show that the defendants resided in Cawnpore in connection with their business or trade This case, therefore, does not help the Applicant. 9. As already stated, the defendant actually resided in Mainpuri at the time the suit was brought and therefore, the Agra Court had no jurisdiction. There is no force in the application. It is, therefore, ordered that it be dismissed with costs.