Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents. This petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :

"(i) issue an order or direction for setting aside the orders dated 19.7.2017 as well as order dated 3.8.2017 passed by the courts below contained in Annexure Nos.-7 and 9 to the petition and to allow the application dated 19.7.2017 filed by the petitioner for summoning the expert of thumb impression as a defendant witness to prove the report submitted by him before the Court below.

(ii) issue any other and appropriate order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) award cost of petition to the petitioner."

2. By the impugned order dated 19.7.2017, the application 131-C filed by the petitioner-defendant for summoning the hand wiring expert Sri Vishan Kumar Sharma, was rejected on the ground that the hand-writing expert report being Paper No.112-C was presented in some other matter.

3. By the impugned order dated 3.8.2017, the Civil Revision No. Nil of 2017 filed by the petitioner-defendant to challenge the aforesaid order dated 19.7.2017, was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that when the plaint was returned under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 for presenting it before the appropriate court then it would amount to continuation of the S.C.C. case. Under the circumstances, the court below was not justified to reject the application 131-C and to hold that the hand-writing expert report filed in S.C.C. Case No.41 of 1986 was a different case. He submits that S.C.C. Case No.41 of 1986 was filed in which it was found that dispute of title is also involved. Therefore, the Judge Small Cause Court has returned the plaint under section 23 of the Act on 11.9.2007. Thereafter, it was presented before the appropriate court and the said S.C.C case was registered as Original Suit No.279 of 2007 (Gopal Sharma and another v. Smt. Vidyawati and others). He, therefore, submits that the nature and character of the suit will continue to be as a small cause case and, therefore, the court below was not justified to reject the Application 131-C.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submits that once the plaint was returned under Section 23 of the Act, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. would apply and it shall be treated as an original suit and not the continuation of the earlier case.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.

7. It is undisputed that earlier Suit No.41 of 1986 (Gopal Sharma and another v. Smt. Vidyawati and others) was filed in the court of Judge Small Cause Court, Bareilly, praying for a decree of eviction from the portion of the disputed house occupied by the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.80/-. The petitioner-defendant had set up the case that he is occupying the said house in the capacity of owner of the house by succession on the death of his "Bua"- the erstwhile owner. Paper No.112-C being report of Sri Vishan Kumar Sharma- a hand writing expert, was filed in this case. The court below found that the question of title is also involved and, therefore, the plaint was returned by order dated 11.9.2007 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Bareilly. Thereafter, the plaint was presented before the appropriate court, where a new number to the said case was allotted being Original Suit No.279 of 2007 (Gopal Sharma and others v. Prem Shanker). The petitioner-defendant submitted an application for summoning the hand-writing expert Sri Vishan Kumar Sharma for examination, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.7.2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division ), Bareilly, on the ground that the said hand writing expert report was filed in some other case. The Civil Revision No. Nil of