N.N. Tiwari, J.

1. This Civil Application is against the order dated 16.9.2004 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Dhanbad whereby the appeal has been dismissed upholding the order dated 6.9.2001 passed by the learned Munsif in Title Suit No. 94 of 1993.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 94 of 1993 and has filed the said suit against the defendant praying decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over Schedule "C" of the plaint and a decree directing the defendants to execute the deed of exchange in favour of the plaintiffs for equal area of lands as shown in Schedule "B" of the plaint. The plaintiffs had valued the suit at Rs. 500/-.

3. The defendant had appeared and filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the suit was grossly under valued and the proper valuation of the suit should not be less than Rs. 60,00,000/-. Subsequently a petition was filed praying for deciding the issue on valuation as a preliminary issue, which was entertained and decided.

4. Learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the suit was undervalued and that the suit was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. Learned Munsif then ordered to return the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the proper Court by his order dated 6.9.2001. In the said order, learned Munsif recorded two contradictory findings on valuation, one in paragraph No. 6 and another in paragraph No. 7. In paragraph No. 6 he held "that the property which is 40 kathas of land cannot be valued less than Rs. 30,000/- but just in the next paragraph i.e. paragraph No. 7 the learned Munsif has observed "that the value of the suit land should not be less that Rs. 60,00,000/-." The learned Munsif did not come to any definite finding regarding the subject matter of the suit. On appeal, filed by the petitioner the lower appellate Court did not take into consideration the same clear contradictions in the order of the learned Munsif and dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Munsif. The learned lower appellate Court casually held that the valuation of the suit property was in lacs and as such there is no illegality or defect in the order of the learned Munsif.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that so far the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is concerned he has no objection if the plaint is returned and directed to be filed before any competent Court after coming to a definite finding on the question of valuation of the suit. Learned counsel submitted that without any cogent evidence on record the learned Munsif has given two different findings regarding the valuation of the suit land : one in paragraph No. 6 holding that the property which is 40 kathas of land cannot be less than Rs. 30,000/- and another paragraph No. 7 of his order that the valuation of the suit land should not be less than Rs. 60,00,000/-.

6. Mr. V.K. Prasad, learned counsel of opposite party No. 1 and as also Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 supported the said impugned orders and submitted that at any rate the valuation of Rs. 500/- keeping in view the subject-matter and the relief prayed for in the plaint in unconscionably low and the same cannot be a proper valuation. Learned counsel submitted that though there is contradiction in two paragraphs of the impugned order of the Munsif yet the same does not require any interference as the learned Munsif has not given any definite finding regarding the valuation of the suit and had given the said observation only in order to hold that the suit was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that there are evidences which go to show that the valuation given by the petitioner is not at all proper and acceptable.

7. After hearing the parties and going through the impugned orders and other