JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The respondent alleged that the first defendant had cut the branches of certain trees standing in this property illegally and thereby he sustained loss. The first defendant, namely the appellant herein acted in excess of his power conferred on him as Executive Officer of the Panchayat. The damages sustained has been assessed and valued at Rs. 1000/-. Claiming the same the suit was filed. But it was dismissed being not maintainable. It was found by the Trial Court that, as the plaintiff did not recourse to the statutory remedy, the suit could not lie. The respondent / plaintiff lookup the matter in appeal. The appeal was allowed. There was a commission report. The Commissioner had assessed the loss as Rs. 600/-. Therefore in appeal the suit was decreed enabling the respondent / plaintiff to realise Rs. 600/- from the defendants, namely the appellant and second respondent herein with future interest at 6%. The appellate decree is under challenge in this second appeal. 2. Notice was issued on the question of law formulated. 3. Admittedly the suit was for damages to the tune of Rs. 1000/-. The suit was decreed as seen from the appellate decree only for Rs.600/-. S.102 of the C.P.C. reads as follows: No second appeal in certain suits; - No second appeals 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 Rs. 3000/- (emphasis supplied) Admittedly the value of the subject matter in this suit is less than Rs.3000/-. When a query was made from the court to the counsel on either side as to the maintainability of the second appeal in the light of the above statutory provision, it was contended by either side that the suit of the nature is one accepted as per the schedule to the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957 and that there was no contention from the first defendant in the suit namely the appellant herein that the suit was not maintainable as the issue could be taken cognizable of only by a Court of Small Causes constituted in terms of S.4 of the said Act. As per S.12 the pecuniary limit of small cause suit is Rs. 1000/-. That is with regard to the suit. 4. As per S.12 the pecuniary limit of small cause suit is Rs. 1000/-. That is with regard to the suit. 4. In the light of prohibition of a second appeal in a suit in the nature cognizable by courts of small causes where the value does not exceed Rs. 3000/-, the counsel were asked to address the court as to whether a second appeal will lie even when the suit was not a small cause suit. It was contended by either side that as the claim was for damages in respect of an act done by an officer like the Executive Officer of a Panchayat statutorily empowered to cut the branches of the trees hanging over the residential premises of another causing danger to human life and property, it will not be a suit of small causes and that second appeal is prohibited as per S.102 only from a decree in a suit triable by Courts of Small Causes. This being not a decree of Small Cause Court, the prohibition of second appeal contained in S.102 does not have any application. 5. S.12 of the Act provides a pecuniary limit of Rs. 1000/- for small cause suits. But the pecuniary limit contained in S.102 of the C.P.C. is Rs. 3000/-. Thus it is clear that S.102 in CPC has brought within its fold certain suits which are not pure small cause suits in terms of S.12 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957. Added to this is the words of the nature cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes to indicate something more than the suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes. The amount of value of the subject matter of the Original Suit, wherefrom this Second Appeal arises, does not exceed Rs. 3000/-. Therefore, this Second Appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.