The non-applicants have been duly served with notice issued by this Court. On 08/02/2017 as none of the non-applicants had appeared, the hearing was adjourned so as to grant one opportunity to them. Today also there is no appearance on behalf of the non-applicants. Hence the civil revision application is taken up for final consideration.

2. The applicant-defendant No.4 is aggrieved by that part of the order passed by the trial Court dated 02/08/2016 to the extent it has been held that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The non-applicant No.1 plaintiff has filed suit for declaration that she had inherited 1/3rd share in the suit property along with prayer for partition and separate possession. This suit has been filed against non-applicant Nos.2 to 4 who are related to the non-applicant No.1. In the said suit, the applicant has been arrayed as defendant No.4 and it has been pleaded that the suit property was mortgaged by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 with it in an illegal manner. The defendant No.4 moved an application below Exhibit 13 under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (b), (c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the application it was stated that the suit was not properly valued and that the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit was barred in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly valued and therefore directed the original plaintiff to correct the valuation. It thereafter held that the civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit. Being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the trial Court that the civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit, the applicant-defendant No.4 has filed the present revision application.

3. Shri U. N. Vyas, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after having held that the suit was not properly valued and having directed the plaintiff to properly value the suit, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, ceased to have pecuniary jurisdiction over the said suit after the plaint was properly valued. The suit was therefore maintainable before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. Hence, it was submitted that the question of jurisdiction was required to be decided by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division and the trial Court had no jurisdiction to go into the said question.

4. Having perused the impugned order, I find that the challenge raised by the applicant deserves acceptance. Under provisions of Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code, the trial Court held that the suit was not properly valued and directed the plaintiff to correct the valuation. After the valuation of the suit claim was corrected, the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division ceased to have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As a result of such valuation, the suit was liable to be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. The learned Judge of the trial Court having held that the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the said Court was not justified in entertaining the other objection with regard to jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit. This objection was required to be entertained by the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit which was the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. The impugned order to that extent therefore suffers from a jurisdictional error and is required to be corrected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.

5. In the result, the following order is passed :

(i) The order dated 02/08/2016 passed below Exhibits 1 and 13 to the extent point No.2 as been decided by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division where the suit stands transferred shall consider the