JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.3.1990 passed by Shri A. C. Verma. Civil Judge. Kanpur Dehat in Original suit No. 350 of 1988 deciding issue No. 1 and holding that the suit is undervalued,
3. The property involved in the suit is land and 35 shops which were constructed over it on ground floor and same construction made on first floor. The property is situated in Kasta Pukharayan in Kanpur Dehat and it has been valued at Rs. 50,000. Further cost of the land was also added at Rs. 1.50,000, which comes to Rs. 2 lacs. The shops have been constructed in the year 1990. The valuation of the construction of one room at that time was not less than Rs. 5,000. The court below has held that the construction even on taking very liberal view will not be less than Rs. 1,50,000. It has been submitted that issue No. 2 has been wrongly decided by the court below against the plaintiff for non-joinder of Gopal Das and Arun Kumar as necessary parties to the suit being two sons of the plaintiff and only other two sons of the plaintiff, namely, Ashok Kumar and Vinod Kumar have been made parties to the suit. This revision has been assailed only on issue No. 1 and not on issue No. 2 as it does not fall under the expression "any case which has been decided". There is no ground in the revision that the court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction not vested in it or has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
4. So far as issue No. 1 is concerned, the matter of valuation is between the Court and the plaintiff as has been held in catena of cases. In Bhura Mal Din Dayal v. Imperial Flour Mills Ltd. and Ors.. AIR 1959 Punj 629, it has been held that it is hardly proper for the opposing litigant to raise objections on the score of the court fee for the purpose of shutting out or obstructing adjudication of disputes. The respondents cannot be aggrieved by any order of enhancement of valuation by the Court below.
5. For the reasons stated above, the revision is dismissed.
6. Since the court below itself granted time to the plaintiff to take steps by 16.3.1990 for amendment in the plaint for impleadment of necessary party the revisionist may, however, implead necessary party within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the court below.