Mohd.Raza vs Talat Fatima and others

Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 141C1991 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Barabanki, deciding an issue as preliminary issue which issue read as under :

1 Whether the suit has not been properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient as alleged in para 37 of the written statement ?

The learned Trial Court after having considered the respective contentions of the parties has come to the conclusion that the suit has been properly valued and that court fee which has been paid is sufficient.

Feeling aggrieved from that order, the defendant has filed this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

I have heard learned Counsel on behalf of the revisionist Sri H. S. Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicant at length. Sri Sahai contended before me that by taking erroneous view about the valuation of the suit to the effect that the suit has been properly valued by the plaintiff, the learned court below has acted illegally as upon the valuation the jurisdiction of the court depends i.e. if the valuation exceeds the limits of the jurisdiction of the court then by a wrong decision taken by the court if its usurps jurisdiction, case may arise under Section 115 CPC. A decision in regard to valuation has got a tendency to affect the jurisdiction of the court one way or the other and so this court should admit the revision and issue notice to opposite parties to show cause why the revision be not admitted and allowed. There is no doubt that in case of Courts of limited jurisdiction, the finding of the court regarding the valuation may at times affect the question of jurisdiction but here so far as Civil Judges are concerned in the matters of trial of original suit, there is no limit placed on their jurisdiction, with reference to valuation of the suit nor it has been so pointed out by reference to any provisions of law that the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge in matters of entertainment or trial of suits limited to a particular valuation and when the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge or Civil Court in the matter of original suits and their trial is unlimited, it is immaterial whether the valuation of the suit is as the one alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint or more, it will not affect the jurisdiction of the Court i.e. Civil Judge''s jurisdiction to try the suit as in the present case.

In this view of the matter, the decision on the question of valuation does not touch the question of jurisdiction. Even if, for a moment it be taken that learned Counsel is correct in saying that the court below has erroneously held that the suit has been properly valued, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court does not interfere with an order suffering from any error of fact or of law unless the error is of such a nature that it affects the jurisdiction of the court below one way or the other.

In this view of the matter, apart from the fact, that the order impugned is an order simply deciding question of Valuation not touching jurisdiction is an interlocutory order and does not amount to be a case decided, this revision petition is not maintainable on both counts i,e. the order impugned does not amount to be a case decided and, secondly, that the order impugned does not suffer from a jurisdictional error nor any jurisdictional error has been pointed out.

Thus considered, the revision petition has got no force and is rejected summarily. The interimrelief application is also dismissed.

Revision dismissed.