JUDGMENT

1. Chaube Moti Lal sued Chaube Bhan Datt to recover Rs. 80 on the ground that Chaube Bhan Ditt had cut a him tree belonging to the plaintiff which was growing upon the plaintiff's ground and had done so without the knowledge of the plaintiff and without any right and had taken it way. Those are ambiguous phrases which might be deemed to cover the commission of a criminal offence but might very well be nothing more than an assertion that the defendant had committed a civil wrong. The civil revision came up before Mr. Justice Bajpai on the 21st of April, 1931, and the case of Raghubar Dayal and Others Vs. Mulwa and Others, AIR 1927 All 288 was presented to him. Also his attention was called to the case of Deoki Rai v. Harakh Narain Lal 97 Ind. Cas.129 : 49 All. 85 : AIR 1920 All. 760 : 24 A.L.J. 1017 which is to be found reported in the same Volume at "page 85. Those were the only two cases before the learned Judge. We shall bare, in a moment or two, to refer to a third. Now the sase of Raghubar Dayal and Others Vs. Mulwa and Others, AIR 1927 All 288 is extraordinarily like the matter that is now being debated in this revision. The head-note says that "Article 35(ii) of the