BANANIMA JUMDAR Vs. CHANCHAL MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule issued by a learned single Judge of this Court on a revisional application has been referred to the Division Bench at the stage of final hearing because of an objection that such an application could not be heard and disposed of by a learned single Judge in view of the Rule of this Court The two orders challenged In the revisional application are dated April 24, 1979 and May 16 1979 passed by the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas In Matrimonial Suit No. 13 of 1979 Instituted in a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Since the suit Itself was incapable of valuation the revisional application too has been declared to be Incapable of valuation. Under the Rules of this Court a learned single Judge can entertain revisional applications against orders of judges other than Munsifs upto value of Rs. 5.000/ - and as such this revisional application could not have been moved before a learned single Judge. Unfortunately the attention of the learned single Judge was obviously not drawn to this fact when the Rule was obtained. An application which is Incapable of valuation cannot be said to be of the value upto Rs 5,000/ so as to make it entertainable by a learned single Judge. Such an application Is obviously entertainable by a Division Bench under the Rule of this Court.

(2.) Such being the technical defect we have treated the revisional application as a contested one since presented before us by condoning the delay In the matter of such presentation, The apposite party is already appearing and we propose to dispose of the same on its merits.

(3.) Of the two orders challenged, by the first one the learned District Judge entertained an application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff husband and recorded a direction to the effect following "The learned Advocate for the respondent submits that he has no objection to such withdrawal provided his client Is paid before such withdrawal a sum of Rs. 500/ - as costs. This la agreed to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner . The petitioner is therefore directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 500/ - as costs by the 30th May, 1979."