ORDER P.K. Tare, J. This is a reference under Order 46, rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code by Shri M.A. Razzaque, District Judge, Jabalpur (as he then was) in Misc. Judicial Case No. 92 of 1959, dated 12-4-1960. The present applicant filed a suit for damages for use and occupation in the Small Cause Court on 5-7-1957. That was registered as Civil Suit No. 594 of 1957. On 19-11-1957 the Small Cause Court returned the plaint for presentation to proper Court, holding that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In pursuance of the order of the Small Cause Court, the plaintiff represented the plaint in the regular Court on the same date, namely, 19-11-1957. On 20-11-1959, the regular Court came to the conclusion that the suit was triable by a Small Cause Court and, therefore, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the Small Cause Court. The plaintiff, therefore, moved the District Judge for making a reference to this Court under Order 46, rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge opined that the suit would be triable by a Small Cause Court. Moreover, the learned District Judge stated that under such circumstances where a claim was returned by the Small Cause Court, as also the regular Court, it would be the duty of the District Court to make a reference to the High Court under Order 46, rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge, in his order of reference, has given cogent reasons as to why the reference is being made, as also that the suit is triable by a Small Cause Court. As such, the learned Judge has recommended that the suit should be directed to be tried by the Small Cause Court. A suit for damages for use and occupation in respect of non-agricultural properties would be triable by a Small Cause Court, as was held by Findlay J.C. in Shriniwas Balkisandas Marwadi v. Municipal Committee, Nagpur AIR 1928 Nag 118. Similar was the view expressed by Niyogi A.J.C. (as he then was) in Laxminarayan v. Niyamat Masjid AIR 1933 Nag. 382. There would be no doubt that such a suit in respect of damages for use and occupation relating to a house situated within Municipal limits would be triable by the Court of Small Causes. Similar was the view expressed by Niyogi A.J.C. (as he then was) in Laxminarayan v. Niyamat Masjid AIR 1933 Nag. 382. There would be no doubt that such a suit in respect of damages for use and occupation relating to a house situated within Municipal limits would be triable by the Court of Small Causes. Therefore, I accept the view of the learned District Judge that the suit is triable by a Small Cause Court. Similarly, the view of the District Judge that the District Court under such circumstances is duty bound to make an order of reference to the High Court is well supported by the reported ruling of Staples A.J.C., namely, The Cantonment Board, Jabalpur v. Phulchand 28 NLR 54 : AIR 1932 Nag 70. The same view was taken subsequently by Grille J.C. in Singhai Balchand and another v. Khuman 17 NLJ 169 : AIR 1934 Nag 257. It is, therefore, clear that the learned District Judge rightly referred the present case to this Court under Order 46, rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. As the order passed by the Small Cause Court was clearly erroneous, it would be necessary to set aside the same. By the two orders passed by the Small Cause Court, as also the regular Court, the plaintiff would be in a quandary. At least, he must have some remedy under the law. His suit cannot be thrown out altogether upon a wrong view taken by the learned Small Cause Judge. The regular Court was right in holding that the suit was triable by a Small Cause Court and in that view the regular Court was justified in returning the plaint for presentation to the Small Cause Court. But as neither the Small Cause Court nor the regular Court, nor the District Court would have the power to set aside the wrong order of the Small Cause Court, it is always necessary to make a reference to the High Court, which can set aside the order, which is found to be wrong and give such further direction, as may be necessary in each particular case. The reference made by the learned District Judge is, therefore, accepted. The order of the Small Cause Court dated 19-11-1957 returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court is set aside. The reference made by the learned District Judge is, therefore, accepted. The order of the Small Cause Court dated 19-11-1957 returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court is set aside. No further direction is necessary except that the Small Cause Court shall try the case on merits upon the plaint as was originally presented to it. Consequently, there would be no question of limitation, as the order of the Small Cause Court, dated 19-11-1957 has been set aside with the result that the plaint shall be deemed to have been pending in that Court right from the date of original institution. There shall, however, be no order as to the costs, as the other side was not represented in this Court to contest the reference made by the District Court. Application allowed