JUDGMENT :

[J.J. Munir, J.]

1. This is a defendants' appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), assailing an order of remand passed by the Lower Appellate Court.

2. The plaintiff-respondent (for short, 'the plaintiff') instituted O.S. No. 63 of 1997 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Azamgarh against the defendant-appellant, Sahjadi (since deceased) and now represented by her LRs, defendant-appellants Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 (for short, 'the defendant'), claiming a decree for possession. The plaintiff sought to recover possession of a house denoted by letters A B C D E F H1 H I, as shown in the plaint map. Not much about the parties' case on merits is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal, because the issue here is limited to rejection of the plaint on ground of non-payment of court-fee, determined by the Court.

3. On the pleadings of parties, issues were framed and Issue No. 5 was to the effect: Whether the suit is undervalued and the court-fee paid insufficient? The aforesaid issue appears to have been tried as a preliminary and on 16.12.2015, the Trial Court decided it in the affirmative, holding that the proper valuation of the suit was Rs. 9,82,034/-. The plaintiff was ordered to pay court-fee on the aforesaid value of the suit property ad valorem. Also, the plaintiff was directed to suitably amend the plaint.

4. After Issue No. 5 had been decided, the suit was set down for final hearing with 21.12.2015 being scheduled for recording evidence. It appears that the suit was adjourned on 21.12.2015 and 07.01.2016 in the presence of the parties' Counsel. On 18.01.2016, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff, which was allowed. Though adjournment was allowed, the defendant objected saying that the plaintiff had not complied with the order dated 16.12.2015. To that objection, the plaintiff produced before the Court a search application from the Court of the District Judge saying that the order dated 16.12.2015 had been challenged in revision before the learned District Judge. It does appear that a revision was filed by the defendant before the District Judge against the order, determining the valuation and directing court-fee to be paid ad valorem. The said revision was numbered as Civil Revision No. 2 of 2016 on the file of the District Judge.

5. After adjournment was granted on 18.01.2016, the case was adjourned across a number of dates, all fixed for further orders. These dates are 15.02.2016, 25.02.2016, 10.03.2016 and 16.04.2016. These dates were apparently fixed, because orders of the Trial Court regarding valuation and court-fee were subjudice in revision before the learned District Judge. On 15/16.04.2016, the suit was adjourned to 03.05.2016. On 03.05.2016, both parties sought adjournment on account of pendency of the revision, leading the suit to be posted on 17.05.2016, yet again for final hearing. On 17.05.2016, the defendant moved an application 410-Ga 2 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, seeking rejection of the plaint on ground of insufficiency of court-fee and non-compliance with the Court's order to correct the valuation and supply the requisite court-fee. Thereafter, on 30.05.2016, the plaintiff moved an application in compliance with the order dated 16.12.2015, bearing paper No. 412-Ka-2, seeking to amend the plaint.

6. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ F.T.C., Azamgarh, before whom the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code came up, proceeded to allow the same and rejected the plaint by his order dated 31.08.2016, for the plaintiff's failure in making good the deficiency in court-fee.

7. The plaintiff appealed the said order to the learned District Judge, Azamgarh vide Civil Appeal No. 1093 of 2016. The appeal came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Azamgarh on 01.05.2022. The learned Judge by his order impugned dated 01.05.2022 has allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Ju