ORDER:- This is a revision petition against the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No.10 of 1960 of the District Judge, Manipur, by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of his suit - T.S. No.43 of 1958 filed by him. 2. The said suit was for redemption of some cattle said to have been pledged by the petitioner with the respondent for a loan of Rs.70/- in February, 1955. The suit was contested by the respondent and according to him it was an outright sale and not a pledge and he also disputed the number of the heads of cattle given in possession to him. According to the petitioner he gave pledge of two cows and one bullock, while according to the respondent only one cow and its calf were sold to him for Rs.70/- and after the transaction the cow gave birth to 3 calves and he had sold the cow to another person, while two of the calves died. There was a full-fledged trial in the first Court after the framing of issues. But after the oral evidence on both sides was taken and the case was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed an application for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. That application was dismissed by the trial Court. Then, the petitioner continued the suit and arguments were heard and the trial Court dismissed the suit accepting the oral evidence on the side of the respondent that it was a sale and not a pledge. The matter was taken in appeal and the appellate Court agreed with the trial Court. 3. Now it is contended in revision for the first time by the petitioner that the suit was of a Small Cause nature and should not have been tried as an original suit as section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act gave exclusive jurisdiction to the Small Cause Court. It was contended that the trial Court should not have dealt with the case as an original suit and that its decree was therefore passed without jurisdiction. It was further contended that since it was a suit of a Small Cause nature there was no appeal and hence the decree passed in appeal was also without jurisdiction. It was contended that the trial Court should not have dealt with the case as an original suit and that its decree was therefore passed without jurisdiction. It was further contended that since it was a suit of a Small Cause nature there was no appeal and hence the decree passed in appeal was also without jurisdiction. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner should have been allowed to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. 4. With regard to the first contention I am prepared to agree with the petitioner that the suit for redemption of a pledge of a value of Rs.70/-will be a suit cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. The respondents contention that such a suit will come within the exception provided in Article 15, Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act does not appeal to me. As pointed out at page 237 of the Text Book on Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, by R.L. Anand - 3rd edition, a pledge is complete when money is advanced to the pawner and the goods pledged are delivered to the pawnee and the rights of the parties thereafter are governed by Secs.172 to 181 of the Contract Act. Therefore where the pawner sues for redemption of the goods pledged, whether after a valid tender of the loan or an ascertainment of the amount due, he cannot be deemed to be seeking a relief of specific performance of the contract. The suit by the pawner is one for delivery of specific goods which is not excluded from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court. I am unable to agree with the decision cited for the respondent, namely, Babu Ram v. Deputy Commr. of Hardoi in 61 Ind Cas 803 : (AIR 1921 Oudh 124 (1)). I agree with the decision Singer Sewing Machine v. Mt. Begam, reported in 110 Ind Cas 316 : (AIR 1928 Lah 535), wherein it was held that a suit for return of a chattel given on hire-purchase system was not a suit for specific performance of contract within clause 15 of the Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and was not consequently exempted from the cognizance of a Small Cause Court. 5. I am however unable to see how this plea of the petitioner would help him in the present case. 5. I am however unable to see how this plea of the petitioner would help him in the present case. No doubt, section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act provides that a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable. It would not follow from this that the decree passed by the Court treating it as an original suit will be a void decree. The same Court which dealt with the case as an original suit could have dealt with the case as a Small Cause suit. So, at best it can only be stated that the suit must be deemed to have been tried as a Small Cause suit and hence under S.27 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the decree passed in the suit became final and hence the petitioner had no right of appeal. 6. As pointed in the decision jodha Bijal v. Maganlal Chhaganlal, AIR 1930 Bom 80, the failure to comply with Sec.16, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, was merely a defect in procedure in proceeding in a Court other than the Small Cause Court having jurisdiction and this did not mean that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. To the same effect is the decision U.K. Seal v. Aramugam Chettyar, reported in AIR 1938 Rang. 35. It was held in that decision that the effect of the provisions of section 16 was not to deprive the Regular Court altogether of jurisdiction in suits cognizable by a Court Small Causes, but merely to prevent the exercise of that jurisdiction, by the Regular Court so long as there was a Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction within the same local limits and that if a Court by error tries a suit which is of a Small Cause Court nature and cognizable by Small Cause Court the proceedings of the Court are not entirely without jurisdiction and hence not a nullity. 7. Thus, the decree in the suit by the trial Court dismissing the petitioners suit cannot be called a nullity. It will only mean that the petitioner had no right of appeal and that his remedy was to come by way of revision to this Court instead of filing the appeal. 7. Thus, the decree in the suit by the trial Court dismissing the petitioners suit cannot be called a nullity. It will only mean that the petitioner had no right of appeal and that his remedy was to come by way of revision to this Court instead of filing the appeal. Looking at it in that view the present revision petition which is filed long after the period of limitation cannot be sustained at all. 8. I fail to see how the petitioner can now complain. He himself filed the suit as an original suit and wanted it to be tried as an original suit. Instead of the suit being tried summarily, he was enabled to have his suit tried as an original suit and he was enabled to file an appeal. Both the Courts have come to the same conclusion on the question of fact. I am not prepared to interfere in revision against such a finding of fact even if this revision is treated as a revision against the decree of the trial Court. 9. Lastly, I do not find any merits in the petitioners contention that he should have been allowed to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The petition under Order 23 C.P.C. for such withdrawal was filed at a very late stage after the whole trial was over and probably when the petitioner felt that he was not likely to succeed on the evidence adduced. I cannot therefore accede to his prayer that he must be allowed permission in this revision petition to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The revision petition is dismissed with the costs of the respondent. Revision petition dismissed.