DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. BHOLE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision was presented on 10th May, 1990 with a a an application under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act. The Court was pleased to issue notice on the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff/ respondent has been served. He has filed counter affidavit. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the applicant to the said counter affidavit. After considering the cause shown in the application, it appears that the cause shown is sufficient.

(2.) In the circumstances, the delay was condoned by me just yesterday on 10-12-90. The revision itself was heard partly yesterday and is being taken up today. The counsel for the respondent is not present in the court.

(3.) Two preliminary issues, issues Nos. 9 and 10 were decided by the court below which related to the question whether by allowing the amendment in the valuation clause of the plaint the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court below would change or not. The court below recorded clear finding to the effect that the valuation of the suit after being reduced by the amendment application, the suit became triable by the court of Munsif. On the second issue whether by reducing the valuation of the suit in case the valuation of court-fees is paid was it necessary for the court below to return the plaint for presentation to the court having pecuniary jurisdiction to try such suit, the court below recorded a finding that since the plaintiff paid higher court-fees and valued the suit at a higher valuation, it was his choice to fix the valuation of the suit and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court would depend on the valuation tentatively affixed by the plaintiff. After recording this finding, the court below directed that suit may proceed in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge V, Bareilly.