ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The Writ Petition is listed on board for hearing on Civil Application No. 2043 of 2008. 2. On 6th December, 2005, this Court had ordered Rule returnable early and stayed coercive recovery for a further period of eight weeks. This Court had also ordered some deposit lateron. Parties, therefore, agree for final hearing of this petition. Hence the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Hindaria, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. S.S. Jajoo, Advocate holding for Mr. J.T. Gilda, Advocate for respondents. 4. The Office of the District Court had raised objections to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground of:- [a] valuation of appeal involving a claim Rs.4,78,394-00, which renders it beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court, and [b] two separate appeals ought to have been filed. 5. The learned Joint District Judge, Amravati, accepted the objection and directed return of appeals by Order dated 4th January, 2005. 6. This order is challenged in this petition. 7. The relevant provisions, which pertain to the jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes, appellate jurisdiction arising out of orders covered by Clauses [ff] and [h] of Sub-section [1] of Section 104 of Civil Procedure Code, as well as appeal arising out of a decree passed under Section 26 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, are governed by three provisions, which read as follows:- 26. Suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees or landlords and tenants for recovery of possession of immovable property and licence fees or rent, except those to which other Acts apply, to lie in Court of Small Causes.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, but subject to the provision of sub-section (2), the Court of Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between in licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenants, relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property situated in the area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, or relating to the recovery of the licence fee or charges or rent therefor, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such suits or proceedings. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to suits or proceedings for the recovery of possession of any immovable property or of licence fee or charges or rent thereof, to which the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Bombay Government Premises [Eviction] Act, 1955, the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1919 or the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or any law for the time being in force, apply. 24. Appeals from certain orders of Courts of Small Causes.- Where an order specified in clause [ff] or clause [h] of sub-section (1) of section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [5 of 1908], is made by a Court of Small Causes, an appeal therefor shall lie to the District Court on any ground on which an appeal from such order would lie under that section.. 26A. Appeal.- (1) An appeal shall lie, from a decree or order made by the Court of Small Causes exercising jurisdiction under section 26, to the District Court. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be made within thirty days from the date of the decree or order, as the case may be : Provided that, in computing the period of limitation prescribed by this sub-section, the provisions contained in sections 4,5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall, so far as may be apply. (3) No further appeal shall lie against any decision in appeal under subsection (1). (4) The District Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by the Court of Small Causes was according to law, call for the case in which such decree or order was made and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. 8. Collective reading of above quoted provisions would reveal that irrespective of the valuation of the suit, an appeal under Section 104, Civil Procedure Code, in relation to the orders falling in Clauses [ff] and [h] of Sub-Section [1] thereof would lie before the District Court only under Section 24 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 9. Language of Section 26A further mandates that .an appeal shall lie. from a decree or order made by Court of Small Causes exercising the jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Act, to the District Court. 10. 9. Language of Section 26A further mandates that .an appeal shall lie. from a decree or order made by Court of Small Causes exercising the jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Act, to the District Court. 10. Right of appeal against a decree of Court of Small Causes is a creation of statute, and will have to be governed by the statute giving birth to the said right. 11. In the result, the right of appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code or rule of pecuniary jurisdiction laid down under the Bombay Civil Courts Act has no application to the class of suits, which are governed by Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. 12. The objection raised by the Office of the District Court, Amravati, seems to have been based on thumb rule as to notions of pecuniary jurisdiction based on valuation than a specific reference to the statute, which has created right of appeal. 13. In this background, the order impugned, in so far as it relates to return of appeal, is passed without due advertance to Section 26A. The appellate jurisdiction of the District Court under Section 26A is irrespective of valuation of the suit. 14. At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner has made a statement that he would comply with the objection raised at Item No.4 in the impugned office objection. Four weeks' time for compliance is granted. Two separate appeals will have to be filed by splitting up existing appeal by necessary amendment. 15. In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause [A]. 16. When the appeals will be separated, the District Court will take into consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000-00 [rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only] deposited by the petitioner, which the plaintiffs were allowed to withdraw. The District Court shall be free to direct appropriate deposit if it deems proper and necessary while considering application for stay as well as admission of appeal. Withdrawal of amount allowed by this Court will be subject to such further orders which the District Court shall deem fit and subject to such conditions as would be considered necessary after hearing both the parties. 17. Rule is made absolute in terms of paras 13 to 16. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear own costs.