IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.351 of 2007 1. Bihari Sao, son of late Ram Gulam Sao 2. Santosh Kumar, son of Bihari Sao Both resident of village +P.O. Nagwana, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna. -Defendants-Petitioners. -versus- 1. Ram Pravesh Sao 2. Mannu Saw 3. Chandu Saw, All sons of late Ram Gulam Saw and residents of village +P.O. Nagwana, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna. Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties 1st set. 3. Dhannu Saw, son of late Ram Gulam Saw, resident of village +P.O. Nagwana, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna. Defendant-Opposite Party 2nd set. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s Mahesh Prasad No. II, Rewti Kant Suman and Gopal Sharan, Advocates. For the Opp. Parties : None. ----------- 02/ 31.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendants no.1 and 2-petitioners challenging order dated 01.12.2006, by which learned Munsif, Danapur, rejected their interlocutory application dated 24.08.2006 for dismissing Title Suit No. 42 of 2003 on the preliminary issue of pecuniary jurisdiction as the valuation of the property given in the plaint is Rs.10,000.00, but its value, according to the authorities concerned, was beyond Rs.60,000.00. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- opposite parties first set for eviction of the defendants from suit plot no. 268, which had fallen in their share in the partition among co-sharers. 4. It transpires that in the said suit defendants no.3 and 2 4 appeared and filed their written statement but inspite of notice defendants no.1 and 2 did not file their written statement even after the issues were framed and hence evidence of the plaintiffs and that of defendant no.3 were adduced. However, while the suit was pending for argument, defendants no.1 and 2-petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 1228 of 2005 in this Court, which permitted them to file their written statement on payment of cost and, accordingly, the defendants filed their written statement on 12.04.2006. 5. It further transpires that even thereafter the defendants-petitioners, instead of producing their evidence, delayed the matter by four months when they merely filed an interlocutory application for deciding the issue of valuation and jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. 6. The learned court below considered the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that the defendants-petitioners have been throughout adopting dilatory tactics and have filed the said interlocutory application at this stage although issues have been framed in the suit including the issue of valuation and jurisdiction, according to which evidence has been led in the suit but instead of producing their evidence to controvert the said pleading and evidence of the plaintiffs, the defendants filed the said interlocutory application merely with a view to further delay the matter. 7. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the said interlocutory application of the petitioners with a direction to them to produce their evidence in 3 the suit if they so want. 8.Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )