BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE, J. - (1.) In this appeal an interesting point had arisen. This appeal against the order dated 6/08/1991 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Jalpaiguri in O.C. Suit No. 81/91 had been presented before this Court on 8/08/1991 and was registered as F.M.A.T. No. 2510 of 1991. The appeal was presented before this Court without disclosing the value of such an appeal and office had reported with regard to the maintainability of this appeal that "the instant appeal has been directed against an order passed by Assistant District Judge and the appeal has not been valued. In view of the amended provision of S. 2 of the Bengal Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, an appeal does not lie to the High Court against an order of Assistant District Judge unless the value of the suit exceeds Rs. 60,000.00. In this appeal the value has not been mentioned whether or not the present appeal lies, is however, a matter for consideration of the Court."
(2.) This report was given by the Stamp Reporter on 12/08/1991 and this appeal came up for hearing before this Court for admission on 22/08/1991. When the attention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was drawn with regard to the maintainability of the appeal in terms of the report of the Stamp Reporter, this court was informed that the O.S. Suit No. 81/91 was initially valued at Rs. 15,500/- only and that on 10/08/1991 the plaintiff/appellant filed a petition under O. 6, R. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of plaint valuation and on the basis of such a petition, the petition was allowed to be amended and the value of the suit was allowed to be enhanced at Rupees 1,00,000/- only.
(3.) The question is whether on 8/08/1991 this appeal against the order of Assistant District Judge could be presented before this Court when the value of the suit was Rs. 15,500.00 and that the value was amended and was enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000.00 only on 10/08/1991. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the valuation as on 8/08/1991, the appeal could not be presented before this Court and it could only be presented before the District Judge concerned. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondent filed caveat and were present in the Court and the appeal was taken up for hearing on the question of admission and the Counsel for both sides were heard on the question of maintainability of the appeal.;