IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.629 of 2009 1. SK.FAIYAZ @ SK.FAIYAZ AHMAD, S/O SK.MD. SHAMI 2. SK.REYAZ @ SK.REYAZ AHMAD, SON OF SK.MD. SHAMI BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DANIYAL PARSANNA, P.O. & P.S.-SATHI, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. ………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. ASHWINI KUMAR MISHRA 2. ALAKH KUMAR MISHRA BOTH SONS OF LATE KAPILDEO MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE-DANIYAL PARSAUNA, P.O. & P.S.- SATHI, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN …………(PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT BELOW) 3. BIBI TEHRU @ BIBI TEHRUN NESHA, W/O LATE SK.SHAMI 4. SK.ISHLAQUE AHAMAD, S/O LATE SK.MD.SHAMI 5. SK.SERAJ AHMAD, S/O SK.MD.SHAMI ………(DEFENDANT NOS.1,2 & 4 1ST PARTY IN THE COURT BELOW) SL. NO. 3 TO 5 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DANIYAL PARSAUNA, P.O. & P.S.-SATHI, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. 6. BALIRAM SHUKLA, S/O LATE JATA SHUKLA, R/O VILLAGE-DANIYAL PARSAUNA, P.S. & P.O. SATHI, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN 7. SK. KARMULLAH, S/O LATE SK.BACHHA, R/O VILLAGE-DANIYAL PARSAUNA, P.O. & P.S.- SATHI, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. …………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER: Mr. Madhu Prasun, Adv. And Mr. Umesh Tiwari, Adv. ----------- 2 21.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This revision application has been filed by the defendant against order dated 30.1.2009 passed by learned Additional Munsif-IVth, West Champaran at Bettiah in Title Suit No. 29 of - 2 - 2008 by which the learned court below has rejected the petition of the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for an enquiry with regard to valuation of the disputed land stated in the plaint. From the order impugned, it appears that the defendant did not produce any evidence in support of the claim that the valuation of the disputed land was much more than what was stated in the plaint. They just prayed the court to presume that since the land was purchased 26 years back at Rs. 7,000/-, therefore, its valuation must have increased by now. The court did not find any material produced by the defendant to come to a conclusion that any enquiry is required for ascertaining the correct valuation of said property, so as to examine as to whether on the basis of correct valuation of the suit property it had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same. However, the court below has observed that amongst the issue framed no independent issue has been framed with regard to the valuation of the suit property which was necessary to be done so that it may be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit and in - 3 - case the suit is found under valued the appropriate orders may be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same depends of the valuation of the suit property, this issue should be decided by the court below as the preliminary issue. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. Since it is a question of jurisdiction to entertain the suit on its merit it is expected that the court will decide the issue of valuation of the suit as a first issue before entering into merits of the other issue. With the above observations, this revision application is disposed of. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)