The valuation of the original suit determines the jurisdiction/forum of the appeal, whether the decree or order has been passed in the original suit or any proceeding arising out of such suit.

1. These two review petitions have been filed seeking review of the orders passed by this Court in C.R.No.118 of 1982 and M.A.No. 28 of 1982.

2. Both the civil revision and the miscellaneous appeal arose out of a common order allowing miscellaneous case preferred by opposite part no.1 under Order 21 Rule 99 of Civil Procedure Code and directing the petitioner-decree holder to re-deliver the possession of the property to the opposite party. While civil revision was dismissed on merit holding that no jurisdictional error was involved, the miscellaneous appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

3. The petitioner preferred SLP (Civil) No. 9512 of 1986 before the Supreme Court. A plea appears to have been taken to the effect that the dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was not correct as appeal against Order passed on application under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code lay under Order 21 Rule 103. The plea apparently found favour with their Lordships who by order dated 4.11.86 while disposing of the SLP gave liberty to the petitioner to file review petition. These review petitions have accordingly been filed.

4. A preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainablility of Civil Review no. 119/86 arising out of M.A. 28/82 on the ground that the S.L.P. was preferred against the order passed in the civil revision and not in the miscellaneous appeal and, therefore, the said review petition cannot be entertained.

5. It is true that in the ordinary course two SLPs should have been filed against the orders passed in the civil revision and miscellaneous appeal but I do not wish to go into the technicality having regard to the observations of the Supreme Court. Although the SLP was filed only against order passed in the civil revision, but it is apparent that what apparently appealed to their Lordships was the fact that the appeal had been dismissed as not maintainable and that is why, on prayer made in that behalf, gave express liberty to the petitioner to file review petition. In the above view of the matter, the objection of the counsel for the opposite party is rejected.

6. Another objection has been taken as to the maintainability of the miscellaneous appeal in this Court. It is contended that as the appeal before this Court was valued at Rs. 10,000/-, in view of the relevant provisions of section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Civil Courts Act, in short) the appeal should have been filed before the District Judge. It may be mentioned here that the maintainability of the miscellaneous appeal under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code has not been disputed on behalf of the opposite party. What has been disputed is the forum of appeal. The objection in this regard also, in my opinion, has no substance. It is clear from the language of section 21(1)(a) of the Civil Courts Act that what is determinative of the jurisdiction/forum is not the valuation of the appeal but the valuation of the original suit. It is, however, contended that as the order impugned in the appeal was not passed in a suit the valuation of the suit will not determine the jurisdiction of the court/forum of the appeal.

7. At this stage it would be useful to quote sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Civil Courts Act as under :

"21. Appeals from Subordinate Judges and Munsifs.(1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge shall lie (a) to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which or in any proceeding arising out of which the decree or order was made was less than ten thousand rupees; and

(b) to the High Court in any other case."

8. Counsel for the opposite party relied on the words "or in any proceeding arising out of which........order was made" occurring in the above provision and contended that the Statute have used two terms, namely, suit and proceeding in continuity with each other it must be held they refer to two different things. In other words, according to the counsel, disti