Judgment Dayal, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the defendants against an order D/-2-2-53 passed by the Munsif, First Court, Dhanbad, rejecting the preliminary objection of the defendants that the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction, and the suit was not properly instituted in his court as a money suit. 2. The plaintiff has claimed mesne profits for the years 1355 and 1356 Fs. In respect of the suit land and the allegation is that the defendants being in wrongful possession of the suit land during that period deprived the plaintiff of the dues for the years in question and thereby the defendants have made a wrongful gain. 3. The material facts as appear from the plaint are these: "5. That the land ..... is a first class Bahal land and yields annually at least 18 maunds of paddy and also straw worth Rs. 60. The ..... defendants kept the plaintiff dispossessed from the said land for the period 1345 to 1356 B.S. and has received the profits therefrom during the said period." "6. That the plaintiff gives up claim for mesne profits for the years 1345 to 1354 B. S. He claims the mesne profits for the years 1355 to 1356 only." "7. That the price of paddy is Rs. 8 per maund. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to Rs. 400 for 1355 and 1356 B. S....." 4. The plaintiff gave up the claim of Rs. 8 and claimed only Rs. 400.00 paying court-fee thereon. No prayer asking for an account has been made. 5. The court below held : "I hold that the present suit though being for a sum of Rs. 400 is fully covered under Article 31 of the Provincial S.C.C. Act and is not cognizable by the court of small causes..... Being thus aggrieved, the defendants have filed the present civil revision. 6 The case in the first instance was heard by Rai, J. and His Lordship has referred it to a Division Bench. 7. On this reference Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the suit was essentially a small cause court suit and was, therefore, triable by the court of the small causes and that it could not be tried and heard as an ordinary money suit by the Munsif. 8. Mr. Sarkar, on the other hand, supports the order of the court below. 9. 8. Mr. Sarkar, on the other hand, supports the order of the court below. 9. Both the sides have cited a large number of authorities on the, subject. 10. We have to find out as to which contention is correct and for this an examination of the relevant provisions of the Small Cause Courts Act and the relevant authorities is necessary. 11. Sec.15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act gives jurisdiction to courts of small causes to take cognizance of all suits of civil nature of which the value docs not exceed Rs. 500 except such suits as are specified in the second schedule of the Act. That schedule consists of certain articles of which Article 31 is most important for the purpose of the present case. That article excludes from the jurisdiction of small causes "any other suit for an account including ..... a suit for the profits of immoveable properties belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant." This article contemplates a case in which the plaintiff claims an account. 12. In Kunjo Behari V/s. Madhub Chundra, ILR 23 Cal 884 (FB) (A) their Lordships have held that a suit for mesne profits does not fall under this article. On the other hand, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court and a Full Bench of the Rangoon High Court have held that a suit for mesne profits does come within Article 31 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and is, therefore, not cognizable by a court of small causes : see Savari Muthu V/s. Aithurusu Rowther, ILR 25 Mad. 103 (FB) (B) and U. Min Din V/s. U. Po Thaing, ILR 6 Rang 60: (AIR 1928 Rang 102) (FB) (C). To the same effect is the decision of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court: see Simar Nath V/s. Anand Lal, AIR 1938 Lah 219 (D) Bombay decisions are difficult to reconcile but the general effect of them is that a suit for mesne profits is "a suit for the profits of immoveable property belonging to the plaintiff which had been wrongfully received by the defendant" within the meaning of Article 31, but that it does not come within the said Article if the amount claimed is an ascertained sum so that no account has to be taken (see Antone V/s. Mahadeo, ILR 25 Bom. 85 (E). 85 (E). Girja Bai V/s. Raghunath, ILR 30 Bom, 147 (F), Vinayak V/s. Krishna Rao, ILR 25 Bom 625 (G) and Vasudev V/s. Damodar, 6 Bom LR 370 (H)). 13. No case of our High Court has been cited and the Calcutta view as indicated above, in Kunja Behari V/s. Madhub Chundra (A) (Supra) is that a simple suit for profits of immovable property wrongfully received by the defendant does not come under the last clause of Article 31; such a suit is merely a suit for damages for trespass to property and nothing more, and is, therefore, cognizable by Small Cause Courts. In case of such a suit, the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court is excluded only where such a suit is a suit for an account, i.e., where the plaintiff expressly asks for an account. Unless a decree for accounts is asked for, a suit for money against a person who is alleged to have wrongfully realized the money due to the plaintiff does not come under this article. This view has been later followed by the Calcutta High Court in several cases, see, for instance, Khenta Kamini V/s. Aswini kumar, 32 Cal W.N. 400 : (AIR 1928 Cal 424) (I). The Calcutta Full Bench has been followed in numerous other cases : see for instance. Keshri Sangh V/s. Narain Sangh, ILR 32 Bom 560 (J) (at p. 562), Page Patil V/s. Ishwar Das, AIR 1925 Nag 327 (K) and Ishar Singh V/s. Wasawa Singh 94 Pun Re. 1900 (L). 14. It has been held in Sheopal Singh V/s. Durga prasad, AIR 1928 All, 332 (M) that a suit does not become one for account simply because accounts have to be taken before a balance due from the defendant to the plaintiff can be discovered. A suit for account will be one where a preliminary decree for accounts will be necessary and it will be necessary for the Court to call upon the defendant to render account. 15. Later, Rangoon High Court has also followed the Full Bench decision in Kunjo Behari Singh V/s. Madhub Chundra (A) (supra) in Maung Hla Din V/s. Maung Kyaw Gale Gau, AIR 1927 Rang 262. 15. Later, Rangoon High Court has also followed the Full Bench decision in Kunjo Behari Singh V/s. Madhub Chundra (A) (supra) in Maung Hla Din V/s. Maung Kyaw Gale Gau, AIR 1927 Rang 262. (N) His Lordship has held : "suit for produce which the defendant had taken from the land which he had entered and forcibly worked or its value is not one for account and is of small cause nature." "The forms of suit described under Article 31 are included as being of the nature of suits for accounts." 16. Therefore, it appears that a simple suit for mesne profits is not excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court unless a decree for accounts is expressly asked for. In the present case there is no prayer for account. The claim is merely for Rs. 400. In no case a decree for a higher account can be passed. There is no question of passing a preliminary and final decree in this case. The sum has to be ascertained on the evidence adduced. 17. For these reasons I would hold that the Court below had no jurisdiction to try the suit which is triable by a Court of small causes. The application is, therefore allowed with costs; hearing fee Rs. 32/. The learned Munsif should, therefore, return the plaint for being presented to the proper Court. Sinha, J. 18 I agree that the application be allowed and that the suit is triable by a Court of small causes. Article 31 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act runs as follows : - "any other suit for an account, including a suit by a mortgagor, after the mortgage has been satisfied, to recover surplus collections received by the mortgagee, and a suit for the profits of immoveable property belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant ; " It will be seen that in this article suits for accounts are excepted from the cognizance of a Small Cause Court, and the first part of it is quite clear ; there is no doubt about it. The other part of the section says that a suit by a mortgagor to receive surplus collections received by the mortgagee and a suit for the profits of immoveable property wrongfully received by the defendant are also excepted. The other part of the section says that a suit by a mortgagor to receive surplus collections received by the mortgagee and a suit for the profits of immoveable property wrongfully received by the defendant are also excepted. In one case, it is the surplus collections received by the mortgagee, which can be found only if some sort of! accounting is made by the Court, that is asked to be granted to the plaintiff. Similarly, a suit for profits of immoveable property wrongfully received by the defendant does also involve accounts being taken of the profits which are received by the defendant to which he was not entitled. It is clear, therefore, that Article 31 relates to suits for account as also suits in which the Court can pass a decree only upon taking some accounts. Therefore, all suits, in which the mortgagor prays for recovery of surplus collections and in which a decree is asked for profits of immoveable property wrongfully received by the defendant, are excepted from the cognizance of Small Cause Courts. We have to consider, whether the present case could be covered by any of the exceptions made in this article, and that will depend upon the nature of the relief sought. In the present case, the relief sought is that "the plaintiff be given a decree for Rs. 400.00 against the defendants for mesne profits" and other ancillary reliefs in the shape of cost. Here, though the claim is for mesne profits, the claim is fixed. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the maximum amount of Rs. 400.00 or less. If he had asked for mesne profits received by the defendants without prescribing the maximum limit of it, or even if he had mentioned a certain figure and had asked for ascertainment of mesne profits asserting that he was paying a Court-fee upon a certain amount and offering to pay a higher Court fee if the sum ascertained was greater than that mentioned in his plaint, the matter would be different. Such a suit would involve taking certain accounts and would be within the bounds of Article 31. The present case, however, is not a case of that kind. It is a suit for recovery of certain fixed amount and, therefore, it does not come within the exception. 19. Such a suit would involve taking certain accounts and would be within the bounds of Article 31. The present case, however, is not a case of that kind. It is a suit for recovery of certain fixed amount and, therefore, it does not come within the exception. 19. We might also profitably refer to the provisions of Order XX, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows : - "In a suit for an account of pecuniary transactions between a principal and an agent, and in any other suit not hereinbefore provided for, where it is necessary, in order to ascertain the amount of money due to or from any party, that an account should be taken, the Court shall, before passing its final decree, pass a preliminary decree directing such accounts to be taken as it thinks fit." The important words have been underlined (here in * ) by me. This rule relates to a suit for account, pure and simple, between principal and agent as also to any other suit in which it is necessary to ascertain the amount oi money due to or from any party, that account be taken. In my opinion, suits excepted under Article 31 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, must be the suits in which decrees in terms of Order XX, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure can be passed. If we read these two provisions of the law together, there could be no difficulty in ascertaining the exact meaning of the provisions in Article 31 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 20 As the two subsequent parts of Article 31 are to be found along with the first part, which is a provision for a suit for account, all these parts must be read as containing provisions relating to suits of the nature spoken of in the first part. If it was the intention of the Legislature to exclude suits of the nature referred to in the latter parts of the article as distinct from suits for account, these parts in the article should not have been joined together. From this point of view also, in my opinion, the latter parts of the article must necessarily refer to suits where some kind of accounting is necessary. 21. From this point of view also, in my opinion, the latter parts of the article must necessarily refer to suits where some kind of accounting is necessary. 21. Looked at from any point of view referred to above, in my judgment, the article is not applicable to a suit of the nature in hand, and, therefore, such a suit is not excepted from the provisions of the Small Cause Courts Act. 22. For the reasons given above, I would agree with the authorities mentioned by my learned brother, which hold that a suit for a fixed sum of money though relating to profits wrongfully received by the defendant, is not covered by Article 31 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.