CR 8 of 2008 and FAO 493 of 2008 16.10.2008 Present: Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala & Shri Rajnish Lal, Advocates, for petitioner-appellant. Shri Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent. Both this petitions and the appeal taken up together for decision. On the pleadings of the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, he has tentatively valued the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction below Rs. 10 lac. In these circumstances, this Court would not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this appeal arising out of the order passed on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent. Admittedly, the pecuniary jurisdiction if any would be that of the District Judge. In these facts and circumstances, without entering into the respective merits of the case, as urged by the learned counsel appearing for parties, both this petition and the appeals are disposed of. Liberty reserved to petitioner herein to move the learned District Judge in accordance with law. As and when any proceedings are filed, the learned District Judge shall take into consideration the pendency of Civil Revision/Appeal before this Court for the purpose of limitation for the benefit claimed the petitioner of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. There shall be no order as to costs. October 16, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge.