Fletcher, J.:— This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree complained of should not be set aside. The petitioner before us brought a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 400 due upon a bond. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif at Dinajpur, the Munsif not being vested with the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge. Subsequently, a Subordinate Judge was sent to Dinajpur who was vested with the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge, which powers were admittedly wide enough to try the suit if it had been instituted before him. Two decisions have been cited before us, from which it would appear that the fact that a Judge invested with the Small Cause Court powers was sent to Dinajpur would not affect the right that the plaintiff had to have his case tried by a Court of ordinary jurisdiction, so that there could be an appeal against the decision of the Judge if it went against him. But in this case that was not the course adopted. It appears from the order-sheet that the District Judge on the application of one of the parties made the order of transfer under the provisions of Section 24 of the CPC. That was a course which the District Judge had the right to take, and any right that the plaintiff had when he filed his suit before the Munsif was subject to the provisions amongst, others, of Section 24 of the CPC. So the plaintiff when he instituted his suit in the Court of the Munsif at Dinajpur was liable to have his case transferred by the District Judge to any Court subordinate to the District Court and competent to try and dispose of the case. The District Judge transferred the case to the Subordinate Judge-who was vested with the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge to try suits valued up to Rs. 500. That order was obviously within the powers of the District Judge to make and the plaintiff cannot complain of that order. On the materials before us this case is not a case like those cited in the arguments, but a case: where the transfer was made by the District Judge under the provisions of Section 24 of the CPC.
2. The other point that has been raised is that under the provisions of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, we ought to review the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The ground on which we are asked to review the judgment is this, that many witnesses came forward on the part of the plaintiff to swear to the execution of the bond. On the side of the defendant, there is only the evidence of the defendant himself who denied the execution of the bond. But one truthful witness is worth more than many untruthful witnesses.
3. The learned Judge-had the opportunity of seeing a large body of witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and also of hearing; the evidence of the defendant. He accepted the evidence of the defendant as against that of the large body of the witnesses called by the plaintiff. There is no reason to think that the learned Judge arrived at other than a correct conclusion in so doing. I am of opinion that the present rule should be discharged and that the plaintiff-petitioner should pay to the opposite party the costs incurred by him in this rule. We assess the hearing-fee at one gold mohur.
Richardson, J.:— I agree.
V.B/R.K
4. Rule discharged.