IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.358 of 2008 LAXMAN MANJHI @ BHUAR MANJHI, Son of Ramdayal Manjhi, resident of Village – Afaur, Police Station Khaira, District Saran ….. Defendant/Petitioner Versus 1. FAROKH ANSARI 2. Hasib Ansari Both sons of Usman Gani Mian, resident of village – Afaur, Police Station Khaira, District Saran ….. Plaintiffs 3. Chandrika Manjhi, son of Ram Dayal Manjhi 4. Manik Chand Manjhi, son of Ram Dayal Manjhi . 5. Durga Manjhi, son of Ram Dayal Manjhi 6. Prabhu Manjhi, son of Janak Manjhi 7. Ram Bilash Manjhi, son of Janak Manjhi 8. Kailash Manjhi, son of Janak Manjhi 9. Kameshwar Manjhi, son of Janak Manjhi - All residents of village Afaur, Police Station Khaira, District Saran …. Defendants/opp. parties ----------- 02- 30/7/2010 Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh for the petitioner. The defendant of Title Suit no.129 of 2003 (Farokh Ansari v Laxman Manjhi) has preferred this civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order dated 5.12.2007, passed by the learned Munsif 1st Class, Chapra, wherein he has held that the suit is within his pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a suit for permanent injunction. The defendant (petitioner herein) filed an application before 2 the learned trial court stating therein that the value of the suit property is more than Rs.1.50 lakh and is, therefore, beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif. The contention has been rejected by the impugned order and it is stated that the valuation of the suit valuation disclosed in the plaint is prima facie correct and, therefore, does not call for interference. We agree with the reasoning assigned by the learned trial court. Furthermore, whether a suit is tried by the learned Munsif or the learned Subordinate Judge does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Secondly, question of payment of court-fee is a matter between the court and the plaintiff. We, therefore, do not wish to interfere with the impugned order. 3. This revision application is accordingly rejected. ( S K Katriar ) mrl