( 1 ) THIS case has been listed before us for hearing on a reference made by a single Judge, who was of opinion that there was certain conflict in earlier decisions of this Court. He not only referred the case for decision by a larger Bench but framed two questions which had to be decided. These questions are as below:

(1) Where there is an appeal under Section 6-A and the appellate court decides it, is its decision a case decided or not, and will a revision lie against that decision or not? (2) In a case where deficiency is objected to by the appellant, but the court holds that there is no deficiency; has the defendant any right of revision to this Court?

In the second question it has not been indicated as to which Court recorded the finding that there was no deficiency in court-fee: was it the appellate court deciding the appeal under Section 6-A? in case the application in revision is moved against the order of the trial court, the second question shall amount to whether the defendant can challenge by way of revision the order of the trial Court holding that there is no deficiency in court-fee? Such a question does not arise in the present case and it is not necessary to express any opinion thereon, though, of course, certain observations to be made hereinafter will suggest how this question would have been decided had it been directly in issue. But if the finding contemplated by the second question is one recorded in the appeal under Section 6-A, the question shall cover one of the instances to be governed by the first question. In such a case the two questions can be re-drafted as below :-(1) Does the decision of an appeal preferred under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act amount to a case decided as contemplated by Section 115 of the C. P. C. ? (2) Does a revision lie against this decision? If so, can the order be revised at the instance of the plaintiff only, or of the defendant and Chief Inspector of Stamps also?

Incidentally it may be mentioned that the decision on the above questions shall govern revisions against an order passed in revision under Section 6-B of the Act also.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are simple. The present application in revision under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure arises out of a suit which was instituted by C. L. Basra, plaintiff, for possession of the lower storey of a house used as shop, after ejectment of his son, Pearey Lal basra, defendant. Plaintiff valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and also court-fee at Rs. 100/ -. The defendant raised an objection that the suit was under-valued and the court-tee paid was insufficient. In paragraph 17 of the written statement it was mentioned that the property in question fetched a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-, and on this ground the valuation for both the purposes should be fixed at Rs. 3,600/ -.

( 3 ) AS the valuation of the property was to-be fixed at its market value a commission was issued to a Vakil, under Order 26 Rule 9 C. P. C. , to ascertain its market value. The Commissioner assessed the valuation at Rs. 1,600/- on the basis of the cost of construction but because the valuation on the basis of 20 years rent came to Rs. 3,600/- he took the average of the two figures and expressed his opinion that the valuation of the property could be taken to be Rs. 2,600/ -. Both the plaintiff and the defendant filed objections against the report of the Commissioner. According to the plaintiff, the Commissioner had failed to make an allowance for the depreciation of the building and it was urged that the valuation for both the purposes should be fixed at Rs. 1,000/ -. At an earlier stage the plaintiff had made a statement that the shop, i. e. the property in suit, fetched a monthy rent of Rs. 20/ -. It was on the basis of this statement that the defendant filed an objection that the valuation should be fixed at 20 years rent, that is, Rs. 4,800/ -.

( 4 ) THE Munsif before whom the suit was pending did not record the evidence of the