Pankaj Mithal, J. –

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri K.K. Twiari, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The defendant-revisionist has filed this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the Judgment and order dated 12.8.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in exercise of its power as Small Cause Court decreeingSCC Suit No. 10 of 2015, Mohd. Sarfraj v. Tejumal.

3. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist is that on account of the valuation of the suit in view of the amendment to Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the suit was to be decided by the Small Cause Court presided over by the senior most Civil Judge (Senior Division) of the district.

4. Sri Tiwari accepted the above position but contends that such an objection was not taken by the defendant-revisionist, at the earliest opportunity, at the time of arguments in the court below and, as such, he cannot be permitted to raise it at this juncture.

5. In SCC Revision No. 278 of 2016, Shri Shobhit Nigam v. Smt. Batulan and another decided by me, vide Judgment and orde