- (1.) A. P. Singh, J. This revision has been filed against the order passed by Sri B. C. Kandapal, II Addl. District Judge, Mirzapur in Misc. Case No. M-3/1988 whereby the learned Addl. District Judge has dismissed the review application of the applicants.
(2.) BY the application, the applicants sought review of the order dated 11-2-1988 by which the Court (then Presided by Sri A. P. Singh, Addl. District Judge) had rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the reason that the relief claimed in the suit was under valued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct its valuation within the time fixed had failed to do so. In brief, the facts of the case may be stated which are as follows: Plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for permanent injunction and for demolition of unauthorised construction of a cinema building, shops and other buildings belonging to U. P. Chalchitra Nigam, the defendant. The defendant put in appearance and filed his written statement. The defendants took exception to the valuation of the suit and the Court fee paid in respect of the properties, which were subject-matter of the suit. It was alleged that the properties were valued on much higher amount than the valuation which was disclosed in the plaint and the Court fee paid too was not sufficient. On the objection so taken by the defendants, the trial Court framed issues 16-A and 16-B, which were decided together as preliminary issues on 31-10-1987. The Court held that the value of the building the boundary wall and the shops which were situate in the cinema building were, in any case, not less than Rs. 10 lacs and the value of the land on which the constructions were standing was not less than Rs. 50 thousand. In respect of issue No. 16-B, the Court held that the plaintiff was liable to pay more Court fee as the Court fee paid in the suit was less than the required Court fee. The plaintiff was accordingly directed to amend the pleadings within a fixed time. The plaint was, however, not amended and the time lapsed. Subsequently, an amendment application was filed by the plaintiff seeking the amendment of the plaint, against which defendants filed their objection and upon hearing of applicants' application and the objection of the defendants, the Court rejected the application upholding the objection ; the plaint too was rejected for the reason that has already been disclosed above. After the rejection of the plaint and the amendment application a review application was filed which came to be heard by Sri B. C. Kandapal on transfer.
(3.) I have heard Sri G. D. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the revision and Sri N. B. Singh, on behalf of the respondents. It has been argued by Sri G. D. Srivastava that since the order which was sought to be reviewed by Sri Kandapal, had not been passed by him but by another officer as such, Sri Kandapal had no jurisdiction to decide the review application.;