- (1.) Heard Sri M.M.D. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.N. Singh appears for respondents No. 4 and 5. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondents No. 1 and 6. This petition is directed against the revisional order 10.10.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Etawah whereby the revision of the petitioner under section 115, C.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with it as the valuation of the revision and the suit from which it arises is over Rs. 5,00,000/-. There is no dispute between the parties that the valuation of the suit from which the revision arises as well as that of the revision is more than 5,00,000/- and that in view of Explanation 1(b) of section 115, C.P.C. as applicable to the State of U.P., the revision on account of pecuniary jurisdiction would lie to the High Court.
(2.) The only argument advanced is that the Revisional Court in such circumstances ought to have directed for return of the revision to the revisionist for presentation before the proper Court instead of dismissing the revision.
(3.) In support of the above argument Sri M.M.D. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon RSDV Finance Company Private Limited v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Limited, 1993 AIR(SC) 2094wherein it has been laid down that where the Court arrives at a conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit, proper course is not to dismiss the matter but to return it for presentation for proper Court.;