ORDER This is a revision petition against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge (exercising jurisdiction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act) in Small Cause Case No. 12 of 1956, and has been filed by the defendant Mani Singh. 2. The suit was filed for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 412/- on the ground that the defendant had no title to the land which he had mortgaged with the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 300/-. The rest of the amount of Rs. 112/-was claimed for interest. The first date for hearing was fixed for 14-2-1957, and defendant received the summons on 12-1-1957, that is a month before the date of hearing. On the date of hearing the defendant applied to the Court for an adjournment on the ground that he had several grounds of objection to raise to the claim but due to illness could not engage a counsel and could not obtain a copy of the mortgage deed. 3. The learned Judge rejected the application because it was not supported by an affidavit and the defendant was not willing to pay costs, and he should have obtained leave of the court before he could be permitted to appear and defend the suit, and after hearing the evidence adduced by the plaintiff decreed the claim in full the same day. 4. Two grounds have been pressed before me in this revision, namely, (i) That the claim involving as it did the question of title to the mortgaged lands was not triable by the Small Cause Court. (ii) That the court erred in applying the provisions of Order 37 C.P.C. to the case, and refusing the adjournment prayed for. 5. In my opinion there is no force in the first contention, because a suit for refund of consideration on the failure of the consideration is not exempted from the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court. It is however a different matter if the court thinks (that a question as to the title to immovable property being involved the suit should be tried by a regular court. In that case it has power under S. 23 of the Act to return the plaint, and the regular court would then get jurisdiction and will be bound to try the suit by the regular procedure. In that case it has power under S. 23 of the Act to return the plaint, and the regular court would then get jurisdiction and will be bound to try the suit by the regular procedure. But that is not the same thing as saying that the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. On the second ground, I think that it is necessary to allow this revision in the interest of justice. The provisions of Order 37 are clearly inapplicable here and I was not shown any other law under which it was incumbent on the defendant to obtain previous leave to appear and defend the suit. Similarly it was not necessary that the plaintiff must agree to pay costs before an adjournment could be granted. Grant of an adjournment of such nature can always be made conditional on the payment of cost, and if the party fails to pay the cost then he would be relegated to the position in which he would have been, had the adjournment been not granted, that is, in the present case, if the defendant failed to pay cost as awarded by the court he would not have been allowed to file any written statement. Since it is obvious that these points weighed to a very large extent with the learned Judge in influencing him to come to the decision that adjournment should be refused, I consider that interests of justice demand that the erroneous order ought to be set aside. It is patent that the suit involves several complicated questions, and the defendant ought to have been given at least one more chance to put before the court his defence. 7. I, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court and remand the case for a fresh trial. The defendant will be given a chance to file his written statement subject to his paying Rs. 15/- as costs to the plaintiff. If he fails to pay these costs this revision petition shall stand dismissed with costs. Otherwise costs of this revision shall be borne as incurred. It will be open to the court to consider the question under S. 23 of the Act, on the filing of the written statement. Case remanded.