Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.7.1998 whereby the trial Court while dealing with the question of jurisdiction, decided that the Judge Small Causes Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit and the order dated 20.4.2000 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by the Revisional Court. (2) It appears that the respondent No. 3 filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages on the ground of default. The defendant petitioner filed a written statement and raised a question of jurisdiction to the effect that Judge Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit in as much as in the suit question of title was involved, which could be decided in a regular suit. The trial Court decided the issue relating to jurisdiction. It was held that Judge Small Causes Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit by the judgment and order dated 15.7.1998. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the trial Court, a revision was filed. The Revisional Court also dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 20.4.2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have acted illegally in holding that the Judge Small Causes Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. It was urged that in the suit question of title was involved, which could not be decided by respondent No. 2. The plaint was, therefore, liable to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court. (3) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. (4) Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 provides as under:- "23. The plaint was, therefore, liable to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court. (3) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. (4) Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 provides as under:- "23. Return of plaints in suits involving questions of title – (1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing portion of this Act, when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. (2) When a Court returns a plaint under sub-section (1), it shall comply with the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make such order with respect to costs as it deems just, and the Court shall, for the purposes of Indian Limitation Act, 1877, be deemed to have been unable to entertain the suit by reason of a cause of a nature like to that of defect of jurisdiction." It is well settled in law that Section 23 does not oust the jurisdiction of Small Cause Court to decide question of title. It merely gives option to the Court to send a case to the Court having jurisdiction, to determine the title. A reference in this regard made in the case of Ram Dayal Sonar vs. Sukh Mangal Kalwar, AIR 1937 Alld. 676; Mohd. Faziv Abdul Qyaum ALR 1978 Alld. 470; Abdul Ghafiir Khan vs. Gokul Prasad and others, AIR 1914 Alld. 527. The use of the word may is indicative that the Section confers on the Court of Small Causes a discretion to decide or not to decide the suit for which question of title is raised. A reference in this regard is made in the case of Smt. Padma Negi vs. Giri Lal Jain, 1983 ARC 244. It is well settled in law that the question of title, if arises incidentally, can be decided for the purposes of deciding the main point in the case, which is properly within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court Act. It is well settled in law that the question of title, if arises incidentally, can be decided for the purposes of deciding the main point in the case, which is properly within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court Act. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of Smt. Suvarna Anand @ Gori vs. Ravi Chandra Sharma, 1978 AWC 454 ; Shanker Sahai vs. Praghu Dayal, AIR 1934 Alld. 695. The Court below, therefore, committed no mistake in holding that Judge Small Causes Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In this petition, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. It is, however, observed that the suit shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to the trial Court. (5) Subject to what has been stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.