( 1 ) THE respondent sued the petitioners who were her tenants for damages resulting from their unauthorisedly cutting some trees standing on the leasehold. The suit which was instituted and tried as a small cause suit was decreed though for a smaller amount than that claimed. The petitioners have come up in revision.

( 2 ) IN addition to challenging the decision in regard to its merits it is urged by the petitioners that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the claim came under Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The specific article relied upon are Articles 4, 11, and 35 (ii ). It is urged that in seeking to recover the damages for the value of the trees the plaintiff was trying to assert her interest in immovable property, which is covered by Article 4, or she must be regarded as seeking determination or enforcement of her right or interest in the immoveable property, which comes under Article 11, and that in any event the plaint allegations showed that according to the plaintiff the defendants were committing theft or mischief or criminal misappropriation in cutting and appropriating trees which did not belong to them but to the pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document