Abhinava Upadhya, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Chhaya Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of the revisional court by which the revision has been allowed with regard to issues No.4 and 5 which was with regard to the valuation of the suit and payment of court fee. At the trial stage, the trial court decided the issues holding that the valuation had correctly been made as no material has been shown by the defendants against the valuation made by the plaintiff. The said suit was for permanent injunction being suit No.2169 of 1993. Written statement etc. were filed and issues were framed. Against the decision upon the issues No.4 and 5 by the order dated 7.8.2009, a revision is said to have been filed and the revisional court taking into account the prevalent circle rate of the area at the relevant time held that the suit was not properly valued and remanded the matter back to the trial court to reconsider the same.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order of the revisional court is without jurisdiction as the revisional court has no authority or power to accept any additional evidence which was never produced before the trial court. It is submitted that the additional evidence apart from trial court can be accepted only under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and the revisional court had no jurisdiction to accept such a document.;