JUDGMENT B. Upadhya, J. - This is a first appeal from order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Bulandshahr directing the plaint to be returned to the Plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. 2. The suit was for the recovery of Rs. 600/- said to be due to the Plaintiff who allowed the Defendant to hold weekly cattle fair in his grove in lieu of Rs. 200/- a year promised by the Defendant. It was claimed by the Plaintiff that the Defendants had held their cattle fair for three years and had not paid the amount stipulated. One of the points raised in defence was that the amount of Rs. 200/- agreed upon between the parties was rent or Sayar within the meaning of the U.P. T. Act, 1939 and the suit was not entertainable by the Civil Court. The learned Munsif took the view that the amount of Rs. 200/- was neither rent not Sayar and therefore decreed the Plaintiff's suit. On appear the lower appellate court was of opinion that the amount was Sayar and the suit should, therefore, have been instituted in a revenue court. He accordingly directed the plaint to be returned to the Plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. 3. Mr. H.C. Sharma who appeared for Mr. B.D. Gupta the Appellant's learned Counsel raised a new point in appeal. He contended that irrespective of the question as to whether the amount of Rs. 200/- was Sayar or not, the lower appellate court should not have passed an order directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to another court. He referred to Section 291 of the U.P. T. Act which reads as follows: 291. (1) If, in any such suit such, objection was taken in the court of first instance and the appellate court has before it all the material necessary for the determination of the suit, it shall dispose of the appeal as if the suit has been instituted in the right court. (2) If the appellate court has not before it all such materials and remands the case, or frames issues and refers them for trial, or requires additional evidence to be taken, it may direct its order either to the court in which the suit was instituted or to such court as it may declare to be competent to try the same. 4. 4. This provision, learned Counsel contends, made it imperative for the appellate court to dispose of the appeal as if the suit had been instituted in the right court, if the appellate court bad before it all the material necessary for the determination of the suit. From the judgment of the trial court it does appear that the relevant material was on the record and the procedure mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 291 was riot necessary to be followed. The learned Judge, therefore, was not right in passing the order that he did and the only course open to him under the law was to proceed with the appeal and to decide iron' merits. This provision of the Statute is a salutary one and is meant to prevent multiplicity of legal proceedings. 5. In the light of the observations this appeal must succeed and is allowed. As the point now raised by Mr. Sharma was not raised in the grounds of appeal taken in this Court initially, the parties will bear their own costs of this appeal. The case is remanded to the lower appellate court for decision on merits' in accordance with Section 291 of the U.P. T. Act. Costs in the case will be in the discretion of the lower appellate court.