S.K. Mookherjee, J.

1. WE directed both these revisional applications to be heard together as the point involved in the same, namely, when the question pecuniary jurisdiction is raised by filing an objection under section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure how should the Court decide the propriety or valuation made in the plaint by the plaintiff.

2. THE facts in both the cases in their relevant parts are almost identical. These suits were filed for eviction, inter alia, on the grounds of violation under section 108(m), (o) and (p) of the Transfer of Property Act. THE plaint included a prayer for relief by way of damages and the valuation of the 1ges caused by the defendants had been stated as Rs. 28,000/- and Rs. 27,000/- respectively. THE averments also in the two plaints were more less identical. In both the plaints, details about the composition of the of Rs. 28,000/- and Rs. 27,000/- respectively are absent and on the of such absence it has been urged on behalf of the defendants in both suits that the suits were over-valued and the plaints were required to be led to courts of lesser jurisdiction. In both the cases, the impugned orders went against the defendants giving rise t