Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by the defendant against the decree passed by the Small Causes Court Judge, Jaipur City, dated 30th April, 1956.
(2.) THE non-petitioner instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 250/-paid to the petitioner as advance for the purpose of purchasing certain spare parts of a vehicle. It was alleged that the defendant committed breach of the contract, and when asked to refund the advance, did not do so. THE defendant denied the contract or the receipt of the advance. THE learned Judge accepted the evidence led by the plaintiff and gave a decree to the plaintiff for return of the money paid to the defendant by the plaintiff. It was contend that the suit was one referred to in Art. 15 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Act, and therefore, not cognizable by the Small Cause Court. The Article refers to "a suit for the specific performance or rescission of a contract". Obviously this was not a suit for specific performance or rescission of a contract, but for the recovery of money paid to the defendant for carrying out a certain contract which the defendant had failed to carry out. Learned counsel relied on Mundlamudi Panchalamma vs. Kopparthi Subbaramiah (1) but that related to a suit for recovery of the balance of purchase money. , A direct authority against the contention of learned counsel is to be found in Sundara Thewan vs. Ananthan Kaladi (2), where a suit by vendee recovery of purchase-money on the failure of a contract by vendor to convey land was held to be small cause nature. The contention raised by learned counsel is not correct. It was next contended that the lower court had committed an error in relying upon certain witnesses to prove an admission of the defendant because that case was not made out in the plaint. It is not necessary under the law of pleadings to mention in the plain the evidence which would substantiate the plaintiff's claim. It was finally contended that there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses for the plaintiff and that these witnesses were employees or friends of the plaintiff. This is no ground for disbelieving the evidence. The matter is entirely one of appreciation of evidence. This revision has no force and is dismissed to limine. .;