By the Court.—In the original suit the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had claimed the following three reliefs :

(i) Specific performance of an agreement to sell by executing the sale deed and putting him in possession of the suit property for which the suit was valued at Rs. 16,66,666/-;

(ii) to refund a sum of Rs. 11,74,500/- with 24% interest in case specific performance is not possible and for this relief the suit was valued of Rs. 11,74,520; and

(iii) for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling the suit property to any third party for which the suit property was valued at Rs. 16,66,666/-.

The total valuation of the suit for all the above reliefs was Rs. 45,07,582/-.

2. It appears that the plaint was subsequently amended and an additional relief for cancellation of the sale deed dated 28.7.2011 was also added for which purpose the suit was valued at Rs. 20,00,000/-.

The total valuation of the suit was amended to Rs. 65,07,052/-.

3. The aforesaid suit has been decreed only for the first relief of specific performance for which the valuation was only Rs. 16,66,666/-.

4. The defendant-appellant has preferred appeal against the aforesaid decree of specific performance and has given the valuation of the suit as well as the appeal to be as Rs. 65,07,052/- and Court fee has been paid accordingly.

A preliminary objection was raised that the valuation of the appeal should be Rs. 16,66,666/- only and if it would be so, the appeal would be cognizable by the District Judge.

5. In view of above preliminary objection, the Court had directed the office to re-examine the valuation of the appeal and to submit a fresh report.

6. In pursuance of the above order, office has submitted a fresh report on 3.5.2018 stating that since the appeal is directed only against the decree of specific performance, the valuation of the appeal would Rs. 16,66,666/-. However, as the valuation of the suit is Rs. 65,07,052/- according to the circular issued by the Chief Justice dated 9.2.2016, the appeal would be cognizable by the High Court.

7. The circular dated 9.2.2018 of the Chief Justice as referred to in the office report only directs to transfer all first appeals arising from a decree or an order of the Civil Judge where the valuation of the original suit from which the appeal arises does not exceed Rs. 25,00,000/- to the respective District Judges.

8. The aforesaid circular does not relate to the fresh appeals filed after 9.2.2016.

9. The jurisdiction of the First Appeal in this High Court stand governed by the provisions of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

10. Section 21 of the Act as amended vide U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 provides for the appeals from Civil Judges and it inter alia lays down that an appeal from a decree or an order of a Civil Judge shall lie to the District Judge where the value of the original suit does not exceed from Rs. 5,00,000/- or such higher amount not exceeding Rs. 25,00,000/- as the High Court may fix from time to time by notification in the official gazette. It means that appeals from Civil Judges would lie to the District Judge if the value of the original suit from which it arises is between Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 25,00,000/- and the appeals arising from original suits of higher valuation would thus lie to the High Court.

11. A simple reading of the aforesaid Section 21 of the Act indicates that it is the value of the original suit that governs the jurisdiction of the appeal and not of the valuation of the appeal.

12. It may be noted that the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and for the purposes of Court fees are two distinct factors.

13. The jurisdiction of the appeal has to be governed by the valuation of the suit and not that of the appeal as the valuation of the suit is normally statistic but that of the appeal may vary depending upon the relief granted or refused by the Court of first instance. Thus, if the