IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.156 of 2008 1. Manju Devi W/o Rajendra Sao 2. Mukund Kumar 3. Mukesh Kumar 4. Manoj Kumar All sons of Rajendra Sao resident of Jhakhar P.S. and Dist. Lakhisarai Defendants-Petitioners Versus 1. Jaso Rani D/o Late Bihari Mahto W/o Late Suresh Pd.Singh resident of Village Lona P.O. Parsa P.S.Tarapur Dist. Munger 2. Sidheshwar Mahto son of Late Bihari Mahto resident of Lakhisarai English P.O. and Dist. Lakhisarai 3. Jageshwar Sao S/o Late Mishri Sao resident of Lakhisarai Ward no.3 P.O. and Dist. Lakhisarai 4. Radhe Mahto son of Mauzi Mahto resident of Santar Purani Bazar P.S. and Dist. Lakhisarai Plaintiffs- Opposite Party Ist Set 5. The State of Bihar 6. The Collector, Lakhisarai 7. The S.D.O., Lakhisarai 8. L.R.D.C., Lakhisarai 9. The Circle Officer, Lakhisarai Defendants -Opposite parties 2nd set ----------- For the petitioners: Mr Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate Mr Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party nos. 1 to 3: Mr Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr Sanat Kumar Mishra, AC to GA II -------------- 08 01.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners and learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 as well as learned counsel for the defendants-opposite parties, namely, State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 29.11.2007 by which learned Munsif, Lakhisarai rejected their application for deciding the question of valuation of the suit as a preliminary issue in Title Suit no. 15 of 2006. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite - 2 - party Ist set for declaration that the order of the authorities correcting the Jamabandi was illegal and that Register II entry be corrected in their names and that the authorities have wrongly assumed Nathuni Mahto as the son of Hira Mahto and also to stop the proceeding of demarcation case as well as for costs. In the said suit the defendants appeared and contested. Where after issues were framed by the learned court below. 4. It transpires that on 25.06.2007 the defendants-petitioners filed an application in the learned court below to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for filing before a court of proper pecuniary jurisdiction as the valuation of the suit land was Rs 16,80,000/- but it was shown to be merely worth Rs 1,000/- in the plaint. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs and was finally rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 29.11.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. The learned court below has considered the matter and has found that the issues were settled earlier in presence of both the parties and their lawyers but no such objection was raised by any of them and now thereafter the said application has been filed which can not be allowed because the question of valuation is also included in the issues framed which have to be decided after the evidence on all the issues specifically because the issue of valuation involves question of fact and law both, for which evidence will be required. 6. It is not in dispute that the issues have been framed and the plaintiffs’ evidence has already been closed at the instance of the - 3 - defendants themselves and the suit is pending for the evidence of the defendants on all the issues. 7. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any error of jurisdiction in the order of the learned court below as question raised by the defendants will be well considered and decided by the learned court below at the time of final disposal of the suit. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)