T. S. DOABIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is plaintiff's appeal. He filed a suit claiming damages against the defendants. It was pleaded that cattle belonging to the defendants had caused damage to mustard crop of the plaintiff. Trial Court granted damages to the extent of Rs. 250/ -. Nine of the defendants preferred an appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court. Name of Jamuna Prasad, defendant No. 10 did not figure in the memo of parties. This appeal was allowed by the first appellate Court. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court has preferred the present appeal. ( 2 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the defendant that this appeal is not competent in view of the bar created by Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. His contention is that the matter in this appeal is such as would fall within the purview of Small Cause Court, the claim being less than Rs. 3,000/ -. Accordingly, I have treated this appeal as revision. Such a course is permissible. See R. W. S. S. of India v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2083 where the Supreme Court approved the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 by converting the appeal into revision. ( 3 ) TWO contentions with regard to the maintainability of the appeal before the first appellate Court have been raised. According to the counsel for the plaintiff, an appeal could be preferred only on questions of law and the appeal was not competent in view of the bar created by Section 96 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He has also stated that as the name of defendant No. 10 did not figure in the memo of appeal, the appeal as framed was incompetent. ( 4 ) I have considered the matter. The provisions of Section 96 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure are clear. These read as under:- ( 5 ) AN appeal could be entertained by Court below only on a question of law. On a consideration of the matter, I have come to the conclusion that no question of law arose in the appeal and the decree passed by the Court could not be upset. In any case, a joint decree was passed against all the defendants. On a consideration of the matter, I have come to the conclusion that no question of law arose in the appeal and the decree passed by the Court could not be upset. In any case, a joint decree was passed against all the defendants. Defendant No. 10 was not impleaded as a party in the appeal. His name was not reflected in the memo of appeal. Thus, there is merit in both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The exercise of jurisdiction bythefirst appellatecourt was not proper. No question of law was involved. The Court below could not interfere on facts. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court are maitnained. There would be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .