Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 545 of 1973 (Prem Kumar v. Dera Smadh Baba Sarv Viapi) and Civil Revision No. 685 of 1973 Dera Smadh Baba Sarv Viapi v. Prem Kumar and other), as they are directed against the same order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge HI Class, Patiala, dated February 12, 1973.
(2.) THE facts are that the plaintiff -Dera filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 1 Bigha and 10 Biswas, which had been given on a long lease of 99 years by the previous Mahant, to Prem Kumar and other, on the ground that the land was in alienable and the Mahant had no right to lease it out for such a long period. It was further pleaded that the lease was not binding on the plaintiff -Dera. The suit was reassured by the defendants and one of the pleas taken was that the suit had not been properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction as valuable buildings had been raised on the plot in addition to a garden existing thereon. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the value of the suit for purposes of Court -fee should have been fixed at Rs. 7.500/ - by the plaintiff and on that amount the plaintiff should pay Court -fee within 15 days of the date of the order. At the same time he passed an order that the file be sent to the District Judge for its transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction, as the pecuniary value of the suit exceeded his pecuniary powers as Subordinate Judge HI Class. The plaintiff as well as the defendants have filed these cross -revisions challenging that order. The defendant -petitioner has pleaded that the value of the property in suit should have been determined on the value of the plot and the garden standing thereon, while the plaintiff -petitioner has pleaded that the value of the land should have been determined on the basis of the land -revenue under section 7 (v) (a) or (b) of the Court Fees Act. These two petitions have to be accepted on the short ground the after finding that the value of the suit property was more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate Judge, he should not have decided the matter himself and should have, at that stage, forwarded the case to the District Judge for being transferred to a Court of Competent jurisdiction That Court then would have been competent to decide the matter with regard to the valuation of the property for purposes of Court -fee and jurisdiction.
(3.) I accordingly accept these petitions and set aside the order under revision. The District Judge is directed to entrust this suit to a Subordinate Judge 1st Class who shall determine the valuation of the suit for purposes of Court -fee and jurisdiction. In the circumstances of the case, I make no orders to costs. The parties through their counsel, have been directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Patiala, on 22nd May, 1974.;