IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.623 of 2009 1. DEEP NARAYAN SINGH, Son of late Sargun Lal Singh 2. Prabhunath Singh, Son of late Sargun Lal Singh. 3. Hari Pd. Singh, Son of late Sargun Lal Singh 4. Abhinash Pd. Singh, Son of late Sargun Lal Singh. 5. Anadi Pd. Singh, Son of late Surya Narayan Singh. 6. Amaresh Pd. Singh, Son of late Surya Narayan Singh. 7. Ajay Pd. Singh, Son of Deep Narayan Singh. 8. Rajeev Pd. Singh, Son of Deep Narayan Singj. 9. Chunni Pd. Singh, Son of Deep Narayan Singh. 10. Abhay Kumar Singh, Son of Prabhunath Singh. 11. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Son of Prabhunath Singh. 12.Uday Singh, Son of Hari Pd. Singh. 13. Shambhu Pd. Singh, Son of Hari Pd. Singh. 14. Manoj Kuamr Singh, Son of Hari Pd. Singh. 15. Bablu Singh, Son of Hari Pd. Singh. 16. Pawan Kumar Singh, Son of Abhinash Pd. Singh. 17. Prem Kumar Singh, Son of Abhinash Pd. Singh, all resident of village- Goradih Nawada Bazar, Police Station- Rajoun, District-Banka. Versus 1. RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH, Son of late Sri Lal Singh. 2. Daya Shankar Prasad Singh @ Daya Shankar Singh, Son of late Sri Lal Singh, both resident of village-Nawada Bazar, P.S. Rajoun, District-Banka. ----------- 2. 20.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This revision application has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 16.3.2009 passed by Munsif, Banka in Title Suit No. 24 of 2007 by which the learned court below has allowed the petition of the defendants dated 25.11.2008 and has fixed the suit for hearing on the question of valuation. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier also the defendant no.1 had filed an application which was disposed of by the learned court below by the order dated 15.9.2008. A copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the revision application. From perusal of the - 2 - order dated 15.9.2008, it appears that since no documents were produced by the defendants and the valuation of the suit had been challenged only in the written statement, the learned court below disposed of the said petition with liberty to the defendant to produce the documents in respect of valuation of the suit property on the next date fixed in the suit for hearing. Hence, it is apparent that liberty was granted by the learned court below to the defendants to file a fresh petition along with documents supporting their challenge to the valuation of the suit. Considering the prima facie evidence produced by the defendants in respect of their challenge to the valuation of the suit mentioned by the plaintiffs in the plaint, the court below has decided to hear the matter. As the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit depends on this issue, this court does not find any error in the impugned order of the learned court below and therefore does not find any merit in the revision application and the same is dismissed. (J. N. Singh, J.) Ravi/-