IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1116 of 2006 RAMDEO RAI & ORS Versus BISHWANATH PRASAD SAH ----------- 3 04.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the opposite parties. The Court below by the impugned order has held that the question raised by the defendants-petitioners as with regard to the valuation of the suit having been raised at a belated stage, could be gone into only with all other issues. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that in fact it was for the aid and assistance of the Court itself that such issue should have been examined as a preliminary issue inasmuch as if the valuation of the suit as claimed by the petitioners was found to be ultimately correct, the Court will have no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs- opposite parties would submit that in a suit of the year, 1999, the issues were framed as for back as on 26.9.2001 and took almost a period of 5 years for the petitioner to realise and that the Court below was lacking pecuniary jurisdiction on account of improper valuation of the suit. He would therefore, submit that the - 2 - approach of the Court below in deciding all the issues including the issue in question of valuation of the suit being Issue No. 6 at the time of the disposal of the suit, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties also submits that during the pendency of this application, the plaintiff-opposite parties have already completed their evidence on 4.7.2007 and thereafter it is the defendants who have been taken only adjournments for leading their evidence. In the opinion of this Court, this Civil Revision application has virtually become infructuous on account of subsequent event specially when the evidence of the plaintiff on all issues have been completed and the defendants-petitioners could have also completed their evidence in a period of one and half year. This Court also must agree with the submission of counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties that as a matter of fact there was a gross delay on the part of the defendants- petitioners in making prayer for deciding the issue or valuation of the suit. It goes without saying that in terms of the impugned order itself the issue in question with regard to valuation of the suit would be gone into with all other issues at the time of disposal of the suit. Be that it may, the impugned order does not - 3 - suffer from any jurisdictional error and accordingly, this Civil Revision application is dismissed with a direction to the petitioners to complete his evidence which probably has not been done on account of pendency of this Civil Revision application within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the petitioners do not complete their evidence in the period of six months the Court below will proceed with argument and deliver its judgment. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)