Opinion by
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County, denying appellant’s motion tо reinstate his appeal from an order of a Justice of the Peace.
The City of Easton, through its administrative оfficers, brought complaints against appellant for a violation of the City’s housing code. The cases werе heard by a Justice of the Peace who found appellant in violation of the code and imposed finеs thereon. Appellant then filed an appeal from that judgment to the Common Pleas Court. In the caption оf his notice of appeal, appellant directed the appeal to “The Court of Common Pleаs of Northampton County, Civil Division”. On the day scheduled for the hearing, the City of Easton filed a praecipe to strike the appeals. The prothonotary struck the appeals and the hearing judge then ordered appеllant to file a motion to reinstate the appeals. After it was filed and answered, the hearing judge denied the mоtion because of appellant’s failure *354 to perfect the appeals in accordancе with the rules of procedure governing appeals from orders and judgments of a justice of the peacе.
Specifically, appellant did not file a rule upon the City to file a complaint as required by Justice of the Peace Bule 1004B and serve same on the city as required by Bule 1005B. 1 These rules regulate appeals from judgments аnd decisions of Justices of the Peace in Civil Matters. Appellant contends that the Court below abused its discretiоn in refusing to reinstate the appeal because appellant justifiably believed that the proceеdings before the Justice of the Peace are criminal in nature, that the fines imposed are criminal penalties, and that the proper procedures to be followed in perfecting an appeal are contained in the Minor Judiciary Court Appeals Act, Act of December 2, 1968, P. L. 1137, No. 355, §§3-6, 42 P.S, §§3003-3006; and Pa. B. Grim. P. No. 67. Appellant’s appeal was in compliance with these rules.
At one time it was true, as appellant argues, that the proper classification of an action before a magistrate or justice of the peace against an individual for the violation of a municipal ordinance as civil or criminal was confusing and unsettled. See
Pleasant Hills Borough v. Carroll,
Appellant’s allegation that he believed the appeal to be from a summary criminal conviction is belied by the fact that he treated the appeal as civil in nature and directed his appeal to the Civil Division of the Common Pleas Court. Since the case was a civil proceeding, appellant wаs bound to perfect his appeal in accordance with Pennsylvania Justices of the Peace Rules 1004 and 1005. By failing to do so appellant was subject to the sanction of Rule 1006, 2 providing for the striking of appeals upon the praecipe of the appellee. *356 Although the rules provide for reinstatement “upon good cause shown”, appellant’s allegation that he ivas confused as to the nature of the case, in light of his own treatment of the appeal and the well-established latv defining the nature of such a case did not establish the requisite “good cause”. 3
Order affirmed.
Notes
Rule 1004B provides:
“B. If the appellant was the defendant in the action before the justice of the pеace, he shall file with his notice of appeal a praecipe requesting the prothonotary tо enter a rule as of course upon the appellee to file a complaint within twenty (20) days after serviсe of the rule or suffer entry of a judgment of non pros.” Rules 1005 §§A&B require the appellant to serve the rule upon thе appellee, and file proof of service of the rule with the prothonotary.- Appellant failed to comply with all these rules.
Rule 1006 provides:
“Upon failure of tlie appellant to comply with. Rule 1004A or Rule 1005B, the prothonotаry shall, upon praecipe of the appellee, mark the appeal stricken from the record. The court of common pleas may reinstate the appeal upon good cause shown.”
Neither рarty has objected to our jurisdiction to decide the instant appeal. The appeal is from a final order involving the application of the procedural rules, and not “the application, interpretatiоn or enforcement of (i) any act of the General Assembly regulating the affairs of political subdivisions, municipality аnd other local authorities or other public corporations or of the officers, employes or аgents thereof, acting in their official capacity, or (ii) any home rule charter or local ordinance or resolution.” The Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, July 81, 1970, P. L. 673, No. 223, Art. IV, §402, 17 P.S. §211.402. Cases in the latter category are properly within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. See Commonwealth ex rel. Ransom Township v. Mascheska, supra.