The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment in the valuation of the suit, in compliance with an earlier decision of the trial court, does not provide grounds for a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

The revisionist before this Court is defendant No. 3, in a Suit, being Suit No. 83 of 2013, Km. Himadari Verma & Others Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar Verma and Others.

2. The subject matter of challenge, in the present revision by the defendant/revisionist herein, is to the order dated 25th July 2019, as it has been passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vikas Nagar, district Dehradun, on the amendment application of the plaintiffs/respondents herein, which has been allowed consequentially, resulting into bringing effect into the variation in the valuation of the Suit, and the subsequent order passed on it i.e. 08th August, 2019, whereby a Review Application, filed by the defendant/revisionist, was dismissed.

3. In order to answer the question, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist, it would be apt, to refer to the principal proceedings of the Suit, which had been instituted by the plaintiff/respondent herein, by filing the same before the learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, in which, the plaintiffs to the Suit, had modulated the relief in relation to the property in dispute, which has been described therein at the foot of the plaint, for the purposes of declaring the plaintiff alone, as to be an exclusive owner of the property and being in possession of the same, which is lying on the 1st, 2nd & 3rd floor. Simultaneously, a prayer was also made by the plaintiff, for the grant of a decree of permanent injunction, in relation to the property, the prescients of which, were more appropriately described at the foot of the plaint, as instituted by the plaintiff /respondent on 24th October 2013.

4. This Court, at this stage, is not venturing into the merit of the matter, because, the only subject matter, which would be of consideration for this Court is the present revision, would be the decision taken by the learned trial Court, as impugned in the present revision, qua the aspect pertaining to deciding issue No. 12, in relation to the appropriate valuation of the Suit, and consequential payment of the Court fees, on that reassessed valuation.

5. The defendant i.e. the revisionist herein, while denying the plaint averments, had filed a written statement before the learned trial Court, wherein, in the written statement, he had taken a plea, that the Suit was not appropriately valued and hence, it ought to be dismissed on this ground itself, which was an issue to be decided by the Court, as a preliminary issue.

6. The logic for deciding an issue of appropriate valuation, it always correlates to, that in an event, if an issue of valuation and payment of court fees is decided, to the contrary to the interest of the plaintiff, and if it affects the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, it ought to be rectified by the Court, while deciding an issue of valuation at the first available opportunity, so that the parties may not be forced upon to address the Court on merit, on their respective claims, and which later on while deciding the issues, pertaining to the court fees, particularly, when it resulted into a lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, to decide the matter.

7. The plaintiff in the Suit thus instituted, in fact, has assessed the valuation of the suit, in accordance with the pleadings raised in para 43, of the plaint, which is extracted hereunder:-

“43. That the portion of the property in dispute at the first floor, second floor and third floor has no independent approach for the purpose of egress and ingress. However, if the said portion is rented out it can maximum fetch annual rental of a sum of Rs.60,000/-. However, if the portion of the property at ground floor is rented out it can fetch annual rent of a sum of Rs.72,000/-. Twenty times which comes to Rs. 14,40,000/-. The total valuation of the property in dispute comes to Rs.26,40,000/-. The share of the plaintiffs is 1/3rd which comes to 8,80,000/-. Plaintiffs are in possession o