IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.181 of 2009 1.Saryug Singh , Son of Late Keshri Singh. 2.Arbind Kumar Singh. 3.Shailendra Kumar Singh. 4.Deep Kumar Deepak. Sons of Saryug Singh All residents of Village- Launa, Post Office- Louria Parsa, Police Station- Tarapur, Sub Registry-Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger. ---------Defendants- Petitioners. Versus 1.Anandi Singh, Son of Late Keshri Singh, Resident of Village- Launa, Post Office- Louria Parsa, Police Station- Tarapur, Sub Registry-Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger. --Plaintiff-Opposite First Party 2.Nutan Devi, Wife of Late Manoj Kumar Singh. 3.Ankit Kumar, Minor Son of late Manoj Kumar Singh, Undr Legal and natural guardianship of his mother Nutan Devi. 4. Sweeti Sweta Kumari, Minor daughter of late Manoj Kumar Singh, under the legal and natural guardianship of her mother Nutan Devi. 5 Chandrashekhar Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Anandi Singh. --Opposite Party nos. 2 to 5 resident of village- Launa, Post Office- Louria parsa, Police Station- Tarapur, Sub Registry- Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger. -----Defendants IIrd Party-Opposite IInd Party. --------Opp.Parteis. For Petitioner: Harswardhan Sahay, Adv. For Defendant: Md.Khurshid Alam, Adv. Samir Kumar Singh, Adv. 2 ----------- 6. 27.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. This civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2008 passed by Munsif Ist, Munger in Title Suit No. 13/2005 rejecting the petition filed by the defendants under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. raising objection regarding the want of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court with regard to the suit. The suit has been filed for declaring the sale deed dated 11.08.1997 as null and void and thereafter for partition of half share of the plaintiff in the suit property described in Schedule III of the plaint. The perusal of the plaint shows that the total area of the Schedule III property is 5 ½ decimal of homestead land. The contention of the defendant before the court below was that a pucca house had been constructed over the suit land by him after purchasing the same investing an amount of Rs. 50,000/- but the plaintiff had deliberately shown the suit land as parti land omitting to mention the house thereupon and thus the valuation of Rs. 6,000/-as given in the suit was gross under valuation of the suit property 3 which should be valued at more than Rs. 50,000/- and thus the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. After hearing the parties and examining the evidence adduced by them, the court below by the impugned order has come to the finding that the valuation as given by the plaintiff is correct and there is no want of pecuniary jurisdiction in the Court. The court below has recorded this finding of fact on the basis of evidence on record and no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity by the court below could be established by the petitioners. There is no scope for reappreciation of evidence in revisional jurisdiction. This civil revision application is accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh (V.Nath, J.)