Bapna, J.—This is a revision against the decision of the judge, Small Cause Court, Jaipur dated 20th January, 1954. 2. The petitioner filed a suit against the Government of Rajasthan in the Court of Small Causes on the 10th of February, 1953, for recovery of Rs. 375/-on the allegation that he was licensee for the sale of foreign liquors in respect of a Bar & Restaurant situated at Prem Prakash Cinema, and he used to pay a licence fee of Rs. 150/- per year to the Customs & Excise Department. It was alleged that on the 6th April, 1950, the Customs and Excise Department of Rajasthan asked the plaintiff licence-holder to pay a fee of Rs. 1500/- per year instead of the previous fee of Rs. 150/- a year. The plaintiff declined to pay the amount, but he was told that if the did not pay up the amount his Bar & Restaurant would be closed by force. It was then that the plaintiff paid Rs. 375/- for three months under protest to the Customs & Excise authorities on the 7th October, 1950. It was contended that the said fee of Rs. 375/- was an imposition unauthorised by law, and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to receive back the amount from the Government of Rajasthan. 3. The Government of Rajasthan by a written statement pleaded that the fee of Rs. 1500/-per year demanded of the plaintiff was valid demand, the court had no jurisdiction, and the suit was barred by limitation. 4. The learned Judge, Small Cause Court, held that the suit came within Article 43 of the Second Schedule to the Small Cause Court Act, and consequently decided that the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the court. He also held that Article 16 of the Limitation Act was applicable to a suit of this nature, for which the period of limitation was one year, and consequently the suit was barred by time. The plaintiff has come in revision. 5. In my opinion the decision of the lower court on both the points is not correct. Under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the excise revenue is no doubt recoverable as arrears of land revenue, but such realisation can only be made by a revenue officer. The plaintiff has come in revision. 5. In my opinion the decision of the lower court on both the points is not correct. Under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the excise revenue is no doubt recoverable as arrears of land revenue, but such realisation can only be made by a revenue officer. The Land Revenue Act then in force in Jaipur State was the Jaipur Land Revenue Act, and the only authority entitled to take action for recovery of arrears of revenue was the Nazim (later designated as Sub-Divisional Officer). Art. 43 of the Second Schedule to the Small Cause Court Act would only be applicable in case the claim was made by a revenue authority on account of an arrear of land revenue or a demand recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. In the present case, the claim was made not by any revenue authority but: by an officer of the Customs & Excise Department. The powers of the Officers of the Customs & Excise Department do not include, according to the Act, issue of process for recovery of any excise revenue. Art. 43, therefore, is not applicable. 6. The learned Assistant Government Advocate, urged that in case Art. 43 was not applicable, another Art. 19 would be applicable. Art. 19 becomes applicable when the suit is for a declaratory decree, not being a suit instituted under Order XXI, Rules 63 and 103, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, the plaintiff has obviously not claimed any declaratory relief, and, therefore, the Article was not per se applicable. 7. The learned Assistant Government Advocate contended that the court will have to declare the demand of the fee of Rs. 1500/- by the Excise Department as invalid before any relief could be granted to the plaintiff, and, therefore, the suit was indirectly for declaration. The contention has no force, as stated above, the suit was obviously for recovery of money wrongly realised, from the plaintiff, and the court will incidentally have to go into the merits of the demand. The main relief is the recovery of ths money wrongly realised, and in such cases the addition of the prayer for declaration even if made does not prevent the suit from being of a nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court. Reference may be made to Raman Chetti vs. The Taluk Board of Sivaganga (1). The main relief is the recovery of ths money wrongly realised, and in such cases the addition of the prayer for declaration even if made does not prevent the suit from being of a nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court. Reference may be made to Raman Chetti vs. The Taluk Board of Sivaganga (1). I, therefore, hold that the suit as framed was cognizable by the Small Cause Court. 8. The next reason for throwing out the suit is equally untenable. As held above, the amount was not recoverable by any revenue authority, and for that reason Art. 16 of the Limitation Act also does not apply by the very language used in that Article (The State of Madras vs. A.M.N.A. Abdul Kader Tharaganar Firm (2).) The correct Article applicable to a suit of this nature is Art. 62 or Article 120, and in either case the suit will be within limitation. 9. The revision is, therefore, allowed, the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Cause Court, dated 20th January, 1954, are set aside, and the case will go back that court for trial according to law. The respondent will pay the costs of the petitioner in this Court.