IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1707 of 2007 RAM AKWAL SINGH @ RAM EKBAL SINGH, SON OF LATE KULDEEP SINGH, GAUTAM NAGAR, JANTA ROAD, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………………………DEFENDANT (11)………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. ABDUL HALIM, SON OF LATE RAJJAB ALI, AS MUTAWALLI, RESIDENT OF LAHLADPUR, P.S. GAURICHAK, DISTRICT-PATNA, AT PRESENT RESIDENT AT MOHALLA-PATHOR-KI-MASJID, DARGAH ROAD, MANDAI, P.S. SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………………………PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTY. 2. BILASH MAHTO, SON OF LATE MUNNA MAHTO OF RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LAHLADPUR, P.S. GAURICHAK, PATNA…………...DEFENDANT NO.1…OPPOSITE PARTY -2. 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR…DEFENDANT…OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shree Niwas Singh, Advocate. ------------ 2. 8.3.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the impugned order would have been passed in favour of the petitioner, then the plaint could have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure deciding the lis finally in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is urged that in view of the provisions as contained in proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Civil Revision would be maintainable. In above view of the matter, I proceed to consider 2 this case on its own merit. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 16.5.2007 passed by the Sub Judge-II, Patna, in Title Suit No.212 of 2005, whereby the application of this petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been rejected. Learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner submits that the suit value was suppressed by the plaintiff as the same has been valued as Rs.50,000/- only. That apart, the suit is barred by Law of Limitation and, thus, the court below ought to have rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned court below after hearing the parties had come to the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff is that the orders of settlement passed by the Collector in 1963 as well as the transfer in 1948 could come to his knowledge on 25.5.2002 and, thus, it has been held by the court concerned that the fact regarding the question of knowledge can only be decided after recording evidence. The court below was also satisfied that the plaintiff has clearly disclosed the cause of action. So far as the issue of court fee is concerned, the 3 petitioner could not, even before this Court, establish that how the sufficient court fee had not been deposited in the suit by the plaintiff. There is bare statement that suit has been under valued as Rs.50,000/- but the same could not be substantiated before this Court. In the above view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the court concerned in passing the impugned order. As a result, This Civil Revision is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the question of the valuation of the suit as well as issue of the suit being barred by limitation, which has been raised in this Civil Revision, at an appropriate stage. If such issue is raised by the defendant-petitioner, that shall be decided by the court concerned at the appropriate stage alongwith other issues in accordance with law while deciding the suit in question. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)