- (1.) This revision by the defendant- revisionists is directed against the orders dated 16-3-1994 passed by the VI Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and dated 16-9-1994 passed by the Ist Addl. District Judge, Varanasi on misc. applications filed by the plaintiffs.
(2.) The first order under challenge was passed by the VI Addl. District Judge, Varanasi dated 16-3-1994 by which the court decided that he shall proceed to decide the case fixing 8-4-1994 for filing the written statement and framing of issues. The Stamp Reporter, although in his report pointed out that time upto 16-12-1994 for taking cognizance of the revision is within limitation. It appears that the order dated 16-3-1944 has no direct relationship with the order dated 16th Sept. 1994 passed by the Ist Addl. District Judge, Varanasi, which was passed in respect of the valuation and court-fee paid by the plaintiff on the plaint. Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel has filed his caveat on behalf of the respondents. Sri. Sudhir Chandra appeared as Senior Counsel for the respondent-caveators.
(3.) Initially Sri Sudhir Chandra, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the revision against the impunged order dated 16-3-1994. He submitted that period of limitation for the order dated 16-3-1994 for challenging in revision expired long back and the present revision is, thus, not maintainable, as barred by limitation. So far as the order dated, 16-3-1994, is concerned Sri Rakesh Dwivedi submitted that since the order dated 16-3-1994 is about jurisdiction and competence of VI Addl. District Judge to decide the suit itself, which question is open to challenge even in appeal at a later stage, as such, he can legally impugn order dated 16-3-1994 which initially goes to the root and the competence and jurisdiction of the VI Addl. District Judge, Varanasi to proceed with the suit.;