IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.687 of 2007 JANAK MAHTO son of late Santu Mahto, resident of village +P.O. Basantpur, Bakhri via Dholi Agricultural College, P.S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur… Defendant No. 5/Petitioner Versus 1.GUDDAR MAHTO @ Gaddar Mahto son of late Srichand Mahto, resident of village + P.O. Basantpur Bakhari, P.S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur… ..Plaintiff/Opposite Party Ist Set 2. Raj Kumar Singh @ Raj Karan Singh son of Bhonu Singh, 3. Sitaram mahto son of Jhonti Mahto, 4. Ram Prit Mahto son of late Gopi Mahto, 5. Nawal Kishore Mahto son of Jamun Mahto, 6. Ramdhari Mahto son of Satahu Mahto, 7. Jamun Mahto son of Satahu Mahto, all residents of village +P.O. Basantpur, Bakhri via Dholi Agricultural College, P.S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur… …Defendant Ist Parties/Opposite Parties 2nd set 8. Chanchal Mahto son of late Srichand Mahto, resident of village + P.O. Basantpur Bakhari, P.S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur…Defendant 3rd Party/Opposite Party 2nd Set For the Petitioner: Mrs. Bela Singh, Advocate …. 2 16.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision is directed against the order dated 03.02.2007 in Title Suit No. 170 of 1993, passed by the Additional Munsif, VII, Muzaffarpur, whereby he had rejected the miscellaneous petition for review of its own order dated 16.12.2006 rejecting the prayer of the defendant-petitioner for deciding the matter of pecuniary jurisdiction of the concerned court. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he - 2 - has already filed documents in support of his submission that the suit has been under-valued and, thus, that issue be decided first. However, the court concerned by order dated 16.12.2006 had rejected the prayer of the defendant- petitioner holding that the matter is mixed question of fact and law and this issue was raised at belated stage. The trial court after considering the submission has held that such prayer had already been rejected on 16.12.2006 and there was no fresh ground of reviewing the same. It has further gone to record in the impugned order that the petition had been filed for delaying the case, as the suit is of the year 1993. From the order dated 16.12.2006, which has been brought on the record by the petitioner, it is manifest that the court concerned had granted liberty to the petitioner that the issue of under-valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction shall be decided at the stage of final hearing of the suit, thus, in my opinion, the court concerned has not committed any jurisdiction error in passing the impugned order. This civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)