IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.326 of 2009 Ram Lagan Yadav, son of Late Ram Swarup Yadav, resident of village- Chandapur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, P.O. Teghara, District- Begusarai …..Defendant/Petitioner Versus 1. Nageshwar Singh son of Late Ram Shareshtha Singh 2. Sunil Singh son of Nageshwar Singh 3. Anil Singh son of Nageshwar Singh 4. Sanjay Singh son of Nageshwar Singh All resident of village Ishaquepur, P.S.and P.O. Mahuar, district- Vaishali … Plaintiffs-opp.party 1st set 5. Pawitri Devi W/o Parmeshwari Yadav 6. Rambali Yadav son of Parmeshwari Yadav Both are residents of village and P.O. Samartha District- Samastipur, at present residing at Village Chandaur, P.O. and Anchal Bhagwanpur Sub-Division Teghara, District Begusarai 7. Ram Lakhan Yadav S/o Late Ram Swarup Yadav, resident of village Chandapur, P.s. Bhagwanpur, P.O. Teghara, District- Begusarai. 8. Birendra Singh son of Ram Nandan Singh 9. Nunna Singh son of Late Rajendra Singh 10.Krishna Kant Singh son of Late Satya Nr.Singh 11.digambar Singh son of Late Mahabir Singh 12.Anandi Yadav son of Late Mahabir Singh All resident of village Chandaur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, P.O. Teghara, District Begusarai. …Defendant/opp.party 2nd set ----------- 4. 24/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Defendant has filed this revision application against order dated 20.11.2008 passed by learned trial court rejecting his petition dated 10.9.2008 challenging the maintainability of the suit in the court on the - 2 - basis of suit being beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. From the impugned order, it appears that the said petition was rejected by learned court below taking into account the fact that the defendant had earlier filed one such petition on 1.2.2005 in the suit on which orders had been passed on 19.5.2005 and therefore the petition dated 10.9.2008 was rejected. Petitioner has brought on record the said order dated 19.5.2005 passed earlier by the court below on the said petition dated 1.2.2005. Upon perusal of the said order dated 19.5.2005 it appears that the defendant had filed the petition challenging the valuation of the suit property mentioned in the plaint which was held by the court below as mixed question of law and fact, and therefore, the court below rejected the said petition holding that the same shall be decided with other issues in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the said petition dated 1.2.2005 before this Court. From the pleadings made in the petition itself, it is apparent that a - 3 - vague pleading was made with regard to correctness of valuation of the suit and therefore, the same was rightly rejected by the court below. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before this Court the petition dated 10.9.2008. From this petition it appears that the defendant had specifically pleaded that by amendment of the plaint the plaintiff had increased the area of the disputed property from 15 dhurs to 5 katha 12 dhurs. Initially, for 15 dhurs plaintiff had given valuation as Rs.5010/-. By amendment, the area of the disputed property has been increased to 5 katha 12 dhurs, but the plaintiff did not amend the valuation of the suit accordingly. It has been pointed out in the petition that even if the valuation of 15 dhurs of disputed property as originally mentioned in the plaint as Rs.5010/- is accepted, upon calculation, the valuation of the new area of the disputed property to the tune of 5 katha 12 dhurs will increase enormously and the suit will automatically become not maintainable within pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. It was also pleaded that while amending the plaint in respect of - 4 - the area of the suit property, the plaintiff deliberately did not amend its valuation accordingly, to save himself from paying ad valorem court fee on the valuation of enhanced area of the disputed property. It appears that this aspect of the matter was not considered by the trial court. It is apparent that in view of the amendment of the plaint by enhancing area of the suit property, the suit had to be revalued and the valuation of the suit had to be reassessed and mentioned in the plaint. In the circumstances, it appears that this matter requires reconsideration by the court below in view of the specific pleadings made by the defendant in his petition dated 10.9.2008. As such, order dated 20.11.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to learned court below for its reconsideration on the petition of the defendant dated 10.9.2008. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the said application. This revision application is accordingly disposed of. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh,J.) - 5 -