IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1844 of 2008 1. Gopal Singh Rai, son of Jagarnath Singh. 2. Ramanand Singh, son of Satan Singh @ Satyanarayan Singh. 3. Chandra Jyoti Devi, wife of Late Satan @Satyanarayan Singh. 4. Rajiv Pal Singh, son of Late Subhash Chandra Singh. 5. Nitin Prasad Singh, son of Late Subhash Chandra Singh. All are residents of village-Teghra, P.S.-Barahat, District-Jamui ………………………… Defendants - Petitioners Versus 1. Bandhu Rai, son of Hanshraj Rai. 2. Baidyanath Rai, son of Bandhu Rai. 3. Awadh Rai, son of Bandhu Rai. All residents of Village-Parnia Mauza Bhaluka, P.O.-Parnia, P.S.- Barhat, District-Jamui. ………………..Opposite Parties – Opposite Parties ----------- 3 09.09.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Prayer in this Civil Revision Application is to set aside the order dated 22.7.2008, whereby and whereunder, issue of valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction raised by the defendants- petitioners has been rejected on the ground that valuation of suit as made by the plaintiffs-opposite parties and the court fee paid thereon is sufficient. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it was improper on the part of Court below to hold that an area of 9 acres and 22 decimals of land in a suit filed in the year 2005 could be valued at Rs.800/-. From the impugned order it would appear that the issue of valuation of the suit was gone into by the court below in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and as against five witnesses examined by the defendants-petitioners the plaintiffs- opposite parties had also led oral evidence of as many as four witnesses and the court below having discussed those evidence has 2 recorded a finding that the disputed land is not a valuable land and as such its valuation of Rs.800/- was correct. In the opinion of this Court, such threadbare discussion made by the court below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. It is settled principle of law that valuation of the suit and the consequential court fee must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint. The court below in this context has correctly relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of ‘(Smt.) Prem Kishori Devi Vs. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Katihar’ reported in 1981 (1) BBCJ 531 wherein it has been held that the plaintiff has liberty to state valuation of the relief claimed which can only be taken for the purpose of court fee and there would be no jurisdictional error in such determination of valuation of the suit. In the light of the aforementioned settled principle of law, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the court below has erred in not taking market value of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit, cannot be accepted. Be that as it may, since this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, this Civil Revision Application being devoid of any merit must be and is hereby dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)