Judgment S. Sarwar Ali, J. This is an application under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for realisation of Rs.221.16 paise. The suit has been dismissed. Hence, this civil revision application. 2. It is not in dispute that there was short delivery of Urea by the defendants to the plaintiff. But the case of the defendants was that after notices under Section 78 (B) of the Railway's Act and under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code were served, a cheque of Rs.447/-was sent to the petitioner in full satisfaction of the claim. The petitioner having accepted and encashed that cheque, was not entitled to maintain the suit. 3. The legal position, so far as this Court is concerned, is settled by a decision in the case of Union of India VS. Narayan Lal, In that case, it was held that :- "The principle applicable to a case of this description is discussed in Day V. Mc. Lea (1889) 22 QBD 610 in that case the plaintiff had made a claim against the defendants for a sum of money as damages for breach of contract and the defendants sent a cheque for a less amount, stating that it was in full satisfaction of all demands. The plaintiffs kept the cheque, stating that they did so on account, and brought an action for the balance of their claim. It was held by the English Court of Appeal that keeping the cheque was not, as a matter of law, conclusive that there was an accord and satisfaction of the claim, but that it was a question of fact on what terms the cheque was kept. It was further pointed out by Lord Esher in that case that the fact of keeping the cheque sent in satisfaction of a larger amount could be evidence of accord and satisfaction, and whether or not it was taken in satisfaction was a question of fact to be determined keeping in view all the circumstances of the case." In Single Judge decision Union of India Vr. Jethabhai Jesingbhai Patel and Company it was held, as the head note indicates, as follows: "Where the plaintiffs claimed damages against the Railway Company for the damage done, and the defendant company sent a cheque to the plaintiffs for a sum less than the amount claimed stating that it was in full and final settlement of the claim, the mere fact that the cheque was retained and encashed by the plaintiffs could not be conclusive proof in law that amount was agreed to be accepted on the condition offered. If the railway administration was liable and was bound to pay. the entire claim of the plaintiffs, then it would be merely piling unreason upon technicality to hold in the circumstances that it is open to the defendant company, on the ground of estoppel, to object to the jurisdiction of the Court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for the unpaid claim," In my view, the principles laid down in these two decisions will have to be borne in mind in deciding the present application. But before coming to the facts of the case, I may refer to the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party, namely, the case of Union of India versus M/s Gangadhar Mimraj and another. There, the general principles have been mentioned in paragraph 12, but that is only an enunciation of a general proposition. The specific case of the nature, which have been considered by the two decisions already referred to and, in my opinion, the principles, of those cases will determine the question, involved in this application. 4. It may be said that oral evidence was led only on behalf of the petitioner and certain documents were also proved on its behalf. Exhibit 3 is a letter written by the petitioner to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. Therein, the receipt of the cheque is acknowledged but it is further stated that :- “..... which is less by 221.16 N.P. However, the cheque is being en cashed under protest without prejudice to mil claim," The memo portion of this letter indicates that the Depot Manager, C. C. A. Depot, Bettiah, was asked to pursue matter and obtain payment of the remaining amount being Rs. 221.16 paise. which is less by 221.16 N.P. However, the cheque is being en cashed under protest without prejudice to mil claim," The memo portion of this letter indicates that the Depot Manager, C. C. A. Depot, Bettiah, was asked to pursue matter and obtain payment of the remaining amount being Rs. 221.16 paise. The second portion of the memo indicates that the cheque in question, which was dated 19.4.1972 was being forwarded to the Assistant Accounts Officer (Estt.), Biscomaun, Patna, for information, necessary action and early encashment. This exhibit, therefore, clearly indicates two things. First, that it was not an unconditional acceptance of the cheque, but while accepting the cheque it was asserted that it was in part payment of the dues, and that the remaining amount had to be paid. The second matter to notice is that on the date this letter was written, which is 19.5.1975, the cheque was being forwarded to the Assistant Accounts Officer, for encashment. This, till the date of the writing of this letter, the cheque was not encashed. In these circumstances, in my view, it cannot be held that the acceptance of the cheque amounts to accord and satisfaction as mentioned in Narayan Lall's case. The present case is similar, if not stronger to the case of Union of India VS. Jethabhai Patel and Company. This being the position, in my view, the court below erred in law in dismissing the suit. 5. This application is, therefore, allowed. The order of the court below is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 221.16 paise is hereby decreed. The plaintiff will also be entitled to the cost in the court below and interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till the realisation. There will be no order as to costs so far as this application is concerned. Application allowed.