Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 1.10.2012 (Annexure 5 to the petition) passed by the District Judge, Deoria in Transfer Application No. 327 of 2012 (Surya Kant Tiwari v. Vidya Shanker Tiwari and others).

2. The petitioner herein was defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 for permanent injunction and demolition before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoria. An ex parte injunction order was granted. The petitioner defendant filed his written statement on 5.7.2012 alongwith his objection to the temporary injunction application raising a dispute regarding valuation of the suit. It was stated by him that the plaintiff respondent had valued this property in suit at Rs. 15,000/- whereas the valuation of the property was more than five lakhs. He stated that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was Rs. 25,000/- and since the property in suit was valued at more than rupees five lakhs the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) who had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a suit valued more than Rs. 25,000/-. The plaintiff respondent appears to have admitted the fact of under valuation of the suit property hence he filed an amendment application to change the valuation of the suit property to Rs. 5,20,000/-. The said application was allowed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 24.9.2012.

3. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 then filed a Transfer Application No. 327 of 2012 (Surya Kant Tiwari v. Vidya Shanker Tiwari and others) under Section 24 CPC before the District Judge, Deoria who in turn invited comments from the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 27.9.2012 sent a letter to the District Judge, Deoria that after the valuation of the suit property has been amended in the plaint he had no pecuniary jurisdiction. The District Judge on the said comments has passed the impugned order dated 1.10.2012 transferring the case from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 10, Deoria to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 18, Deoria and as such allowed the Transfer Application No. 327 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff respondent. The impugned order dated 1.10.2012 is quoted here under :

“is'k gqvkA

lquk ,oa izHkkjh vf/kdkjh dh vk[;k dk voyksdu fd;kA vkosndx.k }kjk ;g varj.k izkFkZuk i= okn la[;k 2163 lu~ 2009 tks O;ogkj U;k;k/kh’k] tw0 fM0 d{k la[;k 10 nsofj;k ds U;k;ky; esa yafcr gS] dks O;ogkj U;k;k/kh’k] ,l0Mh0 d{k la[;k 18] nsofj;k ds U;k;ky; djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vkèkkj ;g fy;k x;k gS fd okn dk ewY;kadu 520000@& gks x;k gS vkSj mDr U;k;ky; dks okn ds fuLrkj.k dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugh gSA

lqukA lquk vk/kkj i;kZIr gSA vr% izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk okn la[;k 2163 lu~ 2009 tks O;ogkj U;k;k/kh’k] tw0fM0 d{k la[;k 10 nsofj;k ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS] dks fof/kvuqlkj fuLrkj.k gsrw O;ogkj U;k;kèkh’k ,l0fM0 d{k la[;k 18] nsofj;k ds U;k;ky; esa varfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

vUrj.k dh lwpuk foi{kh@fo}ku vf/koDrk dks nsus ds i’pkr vxzsrj dk;Zokgh dh tk;A

ftyk U;k;k/kh’k

nsofj;k “

4. The petitioner defendant feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 1.10.2012 has filed this petition inter alia stating that the impugned order was passed ex parte against the defendant petitioner that the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC have been ignored and violated, that since by the amendment application the valuation of the property in suit was sought to be amended to Rs. 5,25,000/- hence the Civil Judge (Junior Division) having pecuniary jurisdiction only up to Rs. 25,000/- could not have entertained the amendment application or pass any order thereupon and in view of the own admission of the plaintiff in the amendment application regarding valuation of the suit property he could not pass any orders in the suit itself, that the District Judge in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC could not have transferred the suit from the Court of Civil Judge (Jun