NEELAM MISHRA Vs. URMILA YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special counsel appearing for the District Judge, Auraiya and Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3.

(2.) Before passing order on the withdrawal application, for the sake of brevity, we would like to quote our order dated 22.2.2013, which reads thus :

(3.) It appears that appellant before us further moved an application for amendment of the plaint after getting status quo order aforesaid seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 13.06.2012 and for temporary injunction, which is appended as Annexure No.14 to this appeal. It appears from paragraph no.7 of the plaint that appellant had given valuation of the suit as Rs. 50 Lakhs whereas by the aforesaid amendment sought by the appellant after grant of temporary injunction he has sought to substitute entire valuation clause in paragraph 7 of the plaint by paragraph 5 of the amendment application and proposed to bring down the pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit to Rs. 25,600/- within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Aforesaid paragraphs are reads thus: