JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - In O.S. No. 961 in the Court of the Munsif, Puri, State of Orissa is the Plaintiff. Gangadhar Subudhi, son of Ram Chandra Subudhi is the Defendant. In M.S. No. 15661 Ram Chandra Subudhi is the Plaintiff and the State of Orissa through the Collector of Puri is the Defendant. Facts as mentioned in the plaint in O.S. No. 15661 may be narrated first. Plaintiff's case is that Shri M.P. Rath, A.D.M., Puri on behalf of the Collector of Puri directed the Plaintiff to supply papers to the Election Department through the head clerk, Shri Dayanidhi Samantaray, who committed suicide prior to the filing of the suit. Plaintiff supplied paper worth Rs. 1214.90nP. between 25-11-1958 and 20-12.1958. Rs. 543.75 nP. was received by Gangadhar towards his dues. The suit is for recovery of the balance of Rs. 671.15nP.. The defence case is that there was no such agreement with the Plaintiff for supply of paper and the payment of Rs. 543.75 nP. was taken by Gangadhar on behalf of Ms. G.S. Dugal and Co. Ltd. with whom Government had transaction under misrepresentation. O.S. No. 961 was filed by the Collector of Puri for refund of Rs. 543.75nP. paid to Gangadhar. The defence in the second suit constitutes the subject matter of the plaint in the first suit. The defence in the first suit is the subject matter of the plaint in the second suit. Rightly both the cases were analogously heard. The trial Court accepted the case of the Collector. He accordingly decreed O.S. No. 961 dismissed M.S. No. 15661. Two appeals were filed by Ram Chandra Subudhi and his son Gangadhar Subudhi. M.A. No. 763 in the Court of the District Judge, Puri arises out of S. No. 961 and M.A. No. 863 corresponds to M.S. No. 15661. In appeal, the learned District Judge rejected the case of the State of Orissa and accepted the case of Ram Chandra Subudhi and his son that papers were supplied to the Election Department. He, however, held that Ram Chandra Subudhi was not entitled to any decree as there was no proof of contract existing between the parties. On the aforesaid findings he dismissed both the suits. In other words, he allowed M.A. No: 763 and dismissed M.A. No. 863. He, however, held that Ram Chandra Subudhi was not entitled to any decree as there was no proof of contract existing between the parties. On the aforesaid findings he dismissed both the suits. In other words, he allowed M.A. No: 763 and dismissed M.A. No. 863. Against the decree in M.A. No. 763, the Second Appeal and against the decree in M.A. No. 863, the Civil Revision have been filed. 2. On the finding of fact that papers were supplied by Ram Chandra Subudhi and portion of receipt ext. 1 was subsequently interpolated and that it was a payment towards papers supplied and that the State derived benefit from the supply of papers, the learned District Judge was correct in dismissing O.S. No. 961. The Second Appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs. 3. M.S. No. 15661 was dismissed by the learned District Judge on the ground that though the papers were supplied to the Election Department and were utilised by it, Plaintiff was not entitled to a decree as there was no contract between the parties. One of the significant features in this case that in the plaint the Plaintiff clearly averred that Shri M.P. Rath, the then A.D.M., Puri directed him verbally to supply papers to the Election Department. Admittedly he was the District Election Officer. Gangadhar, Plaintiff's son in support of the Plaintiff's case pledged his solemn testimony. The State of Orissa could have examined Shri M.P. Rath to deny the averment 'of the plaint. Though the learned District Judge drew adverse inference against the Plaintiff for not having previously stated in any of the letter about the verbal direction, he has given no reasons as to why Plaintiff's case should be discarded when Shri M.P. Rath was not examined. In Padma Vithoba Chakkayya v. Mohd. Multani and Anr. 1963 S.C.D. 179, the significance' of non-examination of the Defendant was clearly pointed out. The learned District Judge committed an error of law in not giving it due weight. In my view a clear finding can be recorded on this fact alone that there was a contract between the A.D.M. Shri M.P. Rath and the Plaintiff for supply of papers. 4. The learned District Judge committed an error of law in not giving it due weight. In my view a clear finding can be recorded on this fact alone that there was a contract between the A.D.M. Shri M.P. Rath and the Plaintiff for supply of papers. 4. Even assuming that the finding of the District Judge cannot be assailed in Civil Revision, the position is well settled that even in the absence of a contract, the party deriving benefit or advantage must pay compensation for the equivalent value of the benefit derived. The matter is concluded by State of West Bengal Vs. B.K. Mondal and Sons. The learned District Judge exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity in not following the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. The learned Government Advocate contends that there was no material on the record to establish that in fact the papers were received and utilised by the Election Department. The learned District Judge discussed the evidence of d.ws.2, 3and 4, accepted their evidence and came to conclusion that not only papers were received, but some of the papers which were received from the Plaintiff were utilised for printing by d.w.4 who is a proprietor of a printing press. The finding is a pure finding of fact. The contention must accordingly be rejected. 5. The next question for consideration is whether the Civil Revision is maintainable. The learned Government Advocate does not argue that the Civil Revision is not maintainable. An objection has been raised by the office that a Second Appeal lies. u/s 102, CPC no second appeal shall lie in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject- matter of the original suit does not exceed one thousand rupees. M.S. No. 15661 is valued at Rs. 671.15 nP. Mr. Mohapatra contends that the suit for recovery of the dues on account of non-payment of the price. If the papers is a suit for payment of compensation or damages and is not excluded from the jurisdiction of a Court of small cause under Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and u/s 102, CPC Code. Section 3(2) of the General Clauses Act (Act X of 1897) contains the Definition of an "Act". If the papers is a suit for payment of compensation or damages and is not excluded from the jurisdiction of a Court of small cause under Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and u/s 102, CPC Code. Section 3(2) of the General Clauses Act (Act X of 1897) contains the Definition of an "Act". It says that in this Act, and in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.... (2) "act, used with reference to an offence or a civil wrong, shall include a series of acts, and words which refer to acts done and extend also to illegal omission. By its very definition there may be some controversy regarding the meaning of "civil wrong" and "illegal omissions". It is however unnecessary to consider these controversies. The Act has application only to enactments coming into force subsequent to 1897. Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was passed in 1887. Section 3 therefore has no application to the Provincial) Small Cause Courts Act. 6. It is conceded that except Article 3 in Schedule II, no other article has application to this case, so as to exclude it from the cognizance of a Court of Small Cause. Article 3 prescribes that "A suit concerning an act or order purporting to be done or made by any other officer of the Government in his official capacity, or by a Court of Wards, or by an officer of a Court of Wards in the execution of his office", is excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small causes. It is contended by Mr. Mohapatra on the basis of AIR 1914 Mad 578, that an act refers to some distinct act and not to mere breach of contract by Government or any of its officers. The aforesaid .decision supports his argument. Speaking for myself I have some doubt why the act of acceptance or articles by the officer and the refusal to make payment would not come within the meaning of the article. The learned Government Advocate, however, makes a statement that AIR 1914 Mad 578, has not been dissented from by subsequent decisions. In view of the fact that this decision holds the field for the last 50 years and that there is no dissenting voice, I am inclined to accept it as correct. The learned Government Advocate, however, makes a statement that AIR 1914 Mad 578, has not been dissented from by subsequent decisions. In view of the fact that this decision holds the field for the last 50 years and that there is no dissenting voice, I am inclined to accept it as correct. Section 3(2) of the General Clauses Act has no application to this case. Subject matter of the suit is not excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes. Civil Revision lies u/s 102, CPC as the value of the suit is less than Rs. 1000-. 7. In the result, M.S. No. 15661 is decreed and the Civil Revision is allowed. Plaintiff is entitled to costs through out. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. One set of hearing fees all through. Final Result : Dismissed