ORDER : 1. The plaintiff Hukamchand Mills Ltd. sued the defendant B.B. and C.I. Railway for recovery or Rs.295.4 on account of damages on account of shortage in the goods while the goods were in transit and in the custody of B.B. and C.I. Railway. 2. The suit was instituted on 11th June 1948 in the Court of the Munsiff City Indore. The Munsiff City Indore ordered on 28th June 1948 that the Court has no jurisdiction as the suit being for less than Rs.500 was triable by the Small Cause Court, Indore. The plaint was, therefore, returned to be presented to proper Court. 3. Thereupon, on 28th June 1948, the plaintiff presented the plaint in the Small Cause Court, Indore. The Judge, Small Cause Court, held on the interpretation of Notification No.1567, dated 3rd March 1948 that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. He held that there was no mention in the aforesaid notification of the Small Cause Court and that the Munsiff alone had jurisdiction to try the case subject to the pecuniary limits. He also returned the plaint to be presented to the proper Court. 4. The main question for determination is whether the aforesaid Notification No. 1567, dated 3rd March 1948 bars the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court from trying the suit. 5. Ordinarily all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed Rs.500 (so far as the City of Indore is concerned) shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The Court of Small Cause cannot try a suit, the cognizance whereof by a Court of Small Causes is barred by any enactment of the time being in force, vide Art.43 to Sch.1. 6. The aforesaid notification does not bar the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Cause in cases which are within its pecuniary jurisdiction. Reading the plaint I find that this is a simple suit for damages to recover Rs.295-4 from the B.B. and C.I. Railway on account of shortage of goods. There is nothing in the nature of the suit or in the Notification expressly ousting the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. Mr. Dhodapkar for the opponent contended that on account of the complicated nature of defence in suits against Railway Co., the suit should not be filed in Small Cause Court. This argument is not tenable. There is nothing in the nature of the suit or in the Notification expressly ousting the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. Mr. Dhodapkar for the opponent contended that on account of the complicated nature of defence in suits against Railway Co., the suit should not be filed in Small Cause Court. This argument is not tenable. The jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the nature of the suit as originally brought and not upon the character which it ultimately assumes, What the defence of the defendant in his written statement will be is really irrelevant consideration in the determination of this question. 7. I, therefore, hold that the aforesaid Notification No.1567, dated 3rd March 1948 does not oust the jurisdiction of Small Cause Court to try the suit against Railway Co., for suits based on damages. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court, and direct him to register the suit in his Court and proceed with it and to dispose it of on merits and according to law. 8. Costs to abide the result of the suit.