ORDER : 1. This is a defendant’s revision against the judgment and decree by the Small Cause Court dated 16-12-1970. 2. The non-petitioner has not appeared inspite of service of notice on him. I have, therefore, heard the revision petition ex-parte. The only point urged by Mr. Vajpayee, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit inasmuch as it is excepted by Article 3 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it would be necessary to state a few facts so as to bring out the nature of the suit. 4. The plaintiff took a mining lease of a certain quarry for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 from the petitioner on payment of Rs. 325 each year as lease money and made a deposit of Rs. 100 as security amount. For the year 1965-66 he deposited the lease money in time, but for the year 1966-67 he committed default. Consequently, after serving notice upon the plaintiff non-petitioner, the Collector, Guna by his order dated 29-11-1966 terminated the lease and directed re-auction of the same. By the same order, the Collector also forfeited security amount of the non-petitioner. Nor;-petitioner, therefore, filed the present suit on 8-5-1969 in the Small Cause Court, Guna, for a decree for refund of security amount Rs. 100, and Rs. 339.60 on account of the lease money along with interest paid by him on 7-10-1966 for the year 1965-66, total Rs. 439.66. The petitioner-defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim. But after recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court decreed the suit as stated above. 5. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that this is a suit concerning an act or order purporting to be made by the Collector in his official capacity and is, therefore, excepted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court. 6. Article 3 of the Second Schedule reads as under:- “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.” 7. 6. Article 3 of the Second Schedule reads as under:- “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.” 7. From the language of the Article it is clear that the Article operates precisely to take out of the purview of Small Cause Court claims arising out of an act or order purporting to be done by an officer of Government in his official capacity. Though the claim is for money, but it is no doubt founded on the allegation that the Collector, Guna was not entitled to forfeit the security amount and to retain the lease money deposited by the non-petitioner for the year 1966-67. For the purpose of deciding the applicability of this Article, the essence of the suit must be examined. The foundation of the suit in the present case is, in my opinion, not the agreement alleged to have been executed, but the act of the Collector in cancelling the lease and forfeiting the security amount and the deposit. It would, therefore, not be correct to say that this is a simple money suit arising out of a contract. Precisely the plaintiff’s claim is that the Collector, Guna was not entitled to forfeit the security amount and the deposit made by the non-petitioner by the impugned order dated 25-10-1966.This was the view taken in Sital Prasad Nigam vs. United Provinces AIR 1940 Oudh. 245 and if I may say so with respect, this appears to be the correct view. 8. Accordingly, I allow this revision application, set aside the judgment and decree under revision and hereby direct that the plaint along with the documents may be returned to the plaintiff non-petitioner for presentation to the competent Court. 9. Let the original record of the case be returned to the Small Cause Court, Guna for returning the plaint and its annexure to the plaintiff as directed above. There will be no order as to costs.