( 1 ) THIS rule is directed against a judgment and decree passed by a F. B. of the Small Causes Ct. whereby the Bench decreed a suit for damages brought by the opposite party against the petnr. on account of a certain defect said to have been discovered in an Electrolux purchased by the former from the latter. The opposite party was attracted by an advertisement, appearing in the Statesman of 17-4-1946. By that advertisement the petnr. invited purchasers for an "electrolux gas operated, Model L. 22, 3 1/2 cubit ft. Inspection by appointment. Phone P. K. 2583. " On the same day the opposite party went to the petnr's. house with her brother and a person who is an employee of the Oriental Gas Co. Ltd. , had a look at the machine and made the purchase for Rs. 850. Subsequently, she by a letter, sent through her Solicitor, on 9-5-1946 complained to the deft. that she had made a false representation as regards the serviceable character of the machine and that it was in a defective condition. Some correspondence followed in the course of which the opposite party asked the petnr. to take the machine back and to refund the purchase money. That offer was not accepted and ul