JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendants against an order of Judge, Small Causes, Jaipur City, refusing to try an adjustment pleaded by them in their written statement on the ground that the value of the entire amount involved exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction.
(2.) IT is not disputed that the plaintiffs supplied Til worth Rs. 6665/- to the defendants who paid Rs. 6350/- towards the price of it leaving a balance of Rs. 315/ -. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit against the defendants for its recovery. The defendants pleaded that this amount was paid by adjustment. Their case was that there was another contract for the supply of Til between the parties which the plaintiffs failed to fulfil and that there was an agreement between the parties before the institution of the present suit under which the plaintiffs agreed to pay Rs. 605/- to the defendants as damages for breach of that contract. Further it was agreed that out of this amount a sum of Rs. 315/- would be adjustable towards the price of Til already supplied by the plaintiffs leaving a balance of Rs. 289/- which the plaintiffs promised to pay to the defendants. The defendants pleaded adjustments to the extent of Rs. 315/- in this suit and brought a second suit for the recovery of Rs. 289/- against the plaintiffs as this amount was not paid. The trial court held that what the defendants had in fact pleaded was a counter-claim to the extent of Rs. 605/- and as its pecuniary jurisdiction extends upto Rs. 500/- it refused to try the counter-claim. It purported to rely on the decision in Hoe Moe vs. I. M. Seedat (1 ). I have carefully read that decision. In my opinion it is distinguishable on facts. A sum of Rs. 3561-1-0 was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had only paid Rs. 1600/ -. The defendant on the other hand alleged that he paid Rs. 3000/ -. Further he claimed set off to the extent of Rs. 1005-15-0 which he claimed was due on a promissory note. The jurisdiction of the court extended upto Rs. 2000/- only. It was held that the court had no jurisdiction to try the counter-claim. The documents on the basis of which further payments were alleged to have been made by the defendants were in fact promissory notes. In these circumstances the Court held that the total set off claimed in the case amounted to more than Rs. 2000/ -. In the present case what is claimed is an adjustment. The difference between an adjustment and a set off or counter-claim is that an adjustment takes place before the suit, whereas when a defendant claims a set off he claims an adjustment in the suit itself. In this connection the following decisions may be referred to - Konda Pentiah vs. Chenchu Rangiah (2), Govt. of the United States of Travancore Cochin vs. Bank of Cochin Ltd. (3), Somraj vs. Jethmal (4), Ramanuj Das vs. Ram Samukh Das (5) and Punjab Electric Power Co. , Ltd. vs. Suraj Kishan (6 ). In other words a plea of adjustment is tantamount to a plea of payment and no court-fee is payable. The trial court erred in compelling the defendants to pay court-fee on the sum of Rs. 315/- which is also refundable to them. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order of the trial court dated 24-11-64 and direct it to try the adjustment pleaded by the defendants in their written statement. The costs of this revision application shall abide the final result of the suit. .;