Powers under order 23, Rule, cannot be invoked unless court has admitted the second appeal.

1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.31 of 1992, on the file of Principal District Munsifs Court, Karaikal, are the appellants before this Court.

2. Appellants have filed the suit to declare that fixation of compensation was not in accordance with Art.7 of the lease deed dated 14.5.1957 and granting a mandatory injunction against the defendant to constitute a Committee in accordance with directions issued by the court and for costs.

3. In the plaint it is stated that the site and land comprised in R.S.No.49/7 at T.S.No.95 in Ward E.Block No. 10 Karaikal is a municipal land and the appellants’ predecessor late Hameed Maricar took permission from the Municipality for construction of a theatre, and, as per the lease agreement dated 14.5.1957, a cinema theatre was constructed. As per the lease deed, the lease is for a period of 29 years, and the lease amount was Rs.331.88 per month. Art.7 of the lease deed provides that at the time of expiry of the lease, the commune shall have right to take possession of the immovable property used as cinema theatre. The price of the building shall be fixed by a Commission comprised of the Mayor, Proprietor of the cinema theatre, Members of the Municipal Council designated by the Municipal Assembly, a delegate of the Director of P.W.D. and the Delegate of the Chief of Contribution Department.Art.8 further says that all disputes that may relate to the lease shall be judged by ordinary Civil Court. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the original lessee Hameed Maricar died on 28.12.1978 and the term of the lease expired on 31.12.1986. The appellants became the owners of the theatre and their rights as ‘lessee was also recognized by the Municipality. At the time when the lease expired, the Special Officer constituted a Committee to decide the value of the building. It is said that subsequently the matter was unilaterally decided and the Commissioner entrusted the work of assessment to the Public Works Department. P.W.D. has assessed the cost of construction without reference to the value of the building. It is said that the present value of the building will be more than Rs.9 1/2 lakhs. But, at the same time, the Municipal Engineer has submitted a Report fixing the value of the theatre as Rs.4,37,979. The value estimated by the plaintiffs is at Rs.7,87,795. Another estimate was also made by the Public Works Department, fixing the value of the cinema house at Rs.6,45,469. While so, plaintiffs received a notice from the Commissioner of the Municipality that they have deposited a sum of Rs.5,20,009 in the Indian Overseas Bank, Karaikal, being the value of the building. It is the plaintiffs’ case that the said deposit is not valid and is not based on any detailed valuation. On receipt of notice, plaintiffs sent a reply stating that they are not accepting the valuation and they wanted the valuation to be fixed as per the agreement dated 14.5.1957 for which the suit was filed.

4. In the written statement, it is contended that the suit is not properly valued. On 12.12.1985, the committee consisting of the Special Officer, Commissioner, Karaikal Municipality, Assistant Engineer from Public Works Department and the Tahsildar from the Revenue Department and the owner of the theatre, namely, the plaintiffs met for the purpose of deciding the value of the theatre structure and they valued the structure at Rs.4,38,000. But the plaintiffs wanted to engage some technical persons for computing the value of the structure, and the owner of the building came forward with a valuation of Rs.8,00,000 for the theatre. The committee met on 19.12.1985 and decided to refer the matter to the Government. Plaintiffs also agreed to refer the question of valuation of the theatre to the Government of Pondicherry and hence they are bound to accept the valuation fixed by the Government. As per the decision of the Committee, the Government directed the P.W.D. to value the building and the same was valued at Rs.6,45,461. The Government