- (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 : "Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Satya Prakash assisted by Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 and perused the record. This appeal challenges the order dated 09.01.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Auraiya in O.S. No. 417 of 2012 rejecting the application paper no. 6-C for grant of temporary injunction filed by the appellant. The appellant prays for setting aside the aforesaid order by which the application for temporary injunction has been rejected and further for grant of temporary injunction to him during the pendency of the suit or pass such other and further orders which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Perusal of the record shows that against the order impugned Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2013, Smt. Neelam Mishra vs. Smt. Urmila Yadav and others, was preferred by the appellant before the District Judge, Auraiya. The appeal was admitted by the order dated 11.01.2013 directing the parties to maintain status quo. The memo of appeal filed in the court of District Judge shows that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of the pecuniary jurisdiction was Rs. 50 Lakhs. It appears from Annexure No.13 filed in this F.A.F.O. before us that respondents have moved an application on 14.01.2013 supported with an affidavit inter alia stating in paragraph 2 that court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Paragraph 2 of the application dated 14.01.2013 in this regard may be referred which reads thus: XXX XXX XXX"
(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: "XXX XXX XXX";