ORDER On due consideration, CLMA No. 792 of 2008 is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. MCC No. 175 of 2008 2. As per office noting and report, a proper notice has been served upon revision petitioner (revisionist) for appearance in the Court today either personally or through counsel. Despite service of due notice, none appears on behalf of the revision petitioner. The need to issue and serve the aforesaid notice had arisen because petitioner’s earlier counsel for B.S. Khanka had unfortunately died. 3. The revision petitioner (Union Bank of India) had filed Civil Revision No. 33 of 2007 in this Court against the order dated 29.05.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C. III, Dehradun exercising the power of Small Causes Court under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (1887 Act for short) while dealing with S.C.C. Suit No. 03 of 2003. Vide the aforesaid impugned order, issue no. 7 was decided against the revision petitioner and in favour of the respondent in the revision – M/s Kwality Restaurant. Issue no. 7 read as under : “7. Whether counter claim is cognizable by a Small Causes Court? 4. In view of the clear fact that in the counter claim, specific performance of an agreement was sought, the learned Court below held that relief for obtaining specific performance was outside the purview of a Small Causes Court under the aforesaid 1887 Act and accordingly held that the revision petitioner – defendant in the suit, if it so desired, could approach a Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking appropriate relief (specific performance) which was the subject matter of the counter claim. Aggrieved, as noticed above, the aforesaid revision petition was filed which has been disposed of by Shri Justice Rajesh Tandon (since retired) vide his judgment dated 18th September, 2007. 5. In the present review application filed by M/s Kwality Restaurant (review petitioner), the aforesaid order dated 18th September, 2007 is sought to be reviewed. 6. In the order under review in para 13, a reference has been made to Section 23 of 1887 Act. 5. In the present review application filed by M/s Kwality Restaurant (review petitioner), the aforesaid order dated 18th September, 2007 is sought to be reviewed. 6. In the order under review in para 13, a reference has been made to Section 23 of 1887 Act. I have carefully read Section 23 and find that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the issues involved for adjudication, Section 23 was not at all attracted or applicable in the present case because this Section clearly related to the legal aspect which stated that when the right of the plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small Causes depended upon the proof or disproof of a title to an immovable property or any other title, the Court may return the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented to the Court of competent jurisdiction for determining the issue relating to title. In the suit filed by the review petitioner against the revision petitioner, no issue or question relating to the title of any immovable property or any other title had arisen for consideration. The review petitioner – plaintiff had filed a suit simpliciter for eviction and mesne profits and defendant-revision petitioner in the written statement had filed a counter claim seeking specific performance of an agreement alleged to have been executed between the parties. None of the parties had either presented or contested any issue with respect to title of the property in question or any other title. Section 23, therefore, was not at all applicable to, or attracted in the case. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment when it made a reference to Section 23 of 1887 Act. 7. Vide the impugned order dated 29.05.2007, the learned Court below had decided issue no. 7 against the revision petitioner – defendant. Section 15 of 1887 Act reads as under : “15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Cause – (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. 7 against the revision petitioner – defendant. Section 15 of 1887 Act reads as under : “15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Cause – (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. (2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. (3) Subject as aforesaid, the [State Govt.] may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the order.” 8. A bare look at sub-section (1) of Section 15 clearly suggests that cognizance of a suit specified in the Second Schedule of 1887 Act is barred as far as Small Causes Court is concerned. In other words, if a suit, mention whereof is made in any of the clauses of Second Schedule, is filed in a Small Causes Court, its cognizance cannot be taken by that Court. 9. Clause 15 of Second Schedule of 1887 Act reads thus : “(15) a suit for the specific performance or rescission of a contract.” 10. Since admittedly the counter claim of the revision – petitioner – defendant was for specific performance, in view of the clear bar contained in Section 15 (supra), it could not have been entertained by Judge, Small Causes Court. The impugned order dated 29.05.2007, therefore, did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It was properly passed by the learned Court below in due exercise of the jurisdiction vested in that Court. On this ground the Review Application deserves to be allowed. 11. While allowing the review application, the impugned order is upheld and the Civil Revision No. 33 of 2007 dismissed.