Lala and others have valued their suit at Rs. 24,000 for purposes of jurisdiction. The suit is being tried by the Civil Judge, Mandi Bahau-ud-Din who has presently Second Class powers. The plaintiffs-respondents have been required by him to correct the valuation of their suit for purposes of court-fee and make up the deficiency by 30-10-1977. In compliance with the order, the plaintiffs have corrected the valuation and fixed it at Rs. 28,500. It was against that order that the petitioner bad filed a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, but, believing that the value of the suit was Rs. 28,500, he returned the petition stating that it was beyond his, pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioner has, therefore, presented the revision petition to this Court.
2. It may, in the first instance, he pointed out that it was the valuation for purposes of court-fee which was amended, and that for purposes o jurisdiction remained the same, i. e. Rs. 24,000. In the circumstances, the return of the revision petition by the learned Additional District Judge for want of jurisdiction, was certainly against law. It may further be noticed that value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 24,000. A question would arise whether the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Mandi Bahau-ud-Din, but it islor the learned Additional District Judge to see whether the order under revision before him is passed by a competent Court.
3. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat is set aside and the case is sent back to him for disposal in accordance with law. No order as to costs.