N. N. Mithal, J. - (1.) THIS F. A. F. O. is directed against the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court.
(2.) A suit for the recovery of Rs. 776.94 was filed on the ground that certain articles were supplied to the defendants out of which only a part has been paid for and a balance of Rs. 776.94 remained due from the Union of India. After serving a notice under Sec. 80, CPC the suit was filed for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. The suit was decreed by the trial court but in appeal, the decision was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court on certain directions contained in the order of the appeal. Against this order of remand the plaintiff came up In appeal. A preliminary objection has been taken by Sri P. N. Katju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. According to him an appeal from an order of remand under rules 23 or 23 (a) of Order 41 shall lie to this Court only where an appeal would He from the decree of the appellate Court. In this case since the suit was valued at Rs. 776.94 by virtue of Sec. 102 CPC no second appeal would lie as the nature of the claim made in the plaint was one which was cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. It is not disputed that the claim was of a nature cognizable by the Judge, Small Causes Court. Valuation of the suit also shows that it was below Rs. 1000/- (now the limit has been raised to Rs, 3000/- from 1-2-1977) and as such, under Or. 43 rule l(u) an appeal directed against the remand order passed by the lower appellate court would not be maintainable. After hearing the counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondents must prevail. In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.;