JUDGMENT

1. This was a suit brought by two plaintiffs against three defendants and was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. The pleadings were very lengthy and led to the framing of no less than seven issues. Of these, however, only one issue was decided, namely, the 7th, which was framed in these words: "Is the suit triable by this Court." On this issue the learned Subordinate Judge found that he was debarred from entertaining the suit by reason of the provisions of Section 167 of the Local Tenancy Act, II of 1901. Upon this he passed an order that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The appeal before us is against this order. The fasts alleged in the plaint are somewhat complicated and those put forward in the written statement of the defendants are still more so. Essentially, however, the point in issue may be stated thus. The plaintiffs allege that in virtue of a contrast come to between themselves On the one hand, and defendant No. 1 and the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the other, the plaintiffs advanced Rs. 800 on one occasion and Rs. 1,200 on another occasion, to be employed by the persons to whom the