IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRP No.30 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure) Charan Pahan and others …. Petitioners -versus- Sudarsan Barik and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case:- For Petitioners : Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 31.10.2025 / date of judgment : 31.10.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This civil revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioners(defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.43 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Khallikote, Ganjam) against the Opposite Parties(plaintiffs in the suit vide C.S. No.43 of 2024) challenging an order of rejection to their petition dated 20.09.2024 under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 passed on dated 03.07.2025 in C.S. No.43 of 2024 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khallikote. p. 2 2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners(defendants) and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties(plaintiffs). 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 7(Plaintiffs in the suit vide C.S. No.43 of 2024) contented that, this revision (arising out of the suit vide C.S. No.43 of 2024 value at Rs.55,000/-) filed by the petitioners(defendants) is not entertainable before this Court, i.e., before the High Court. 4. According to him(learned counsel for the Opposite Parties), the suit vide C.S. No.43 of 2024, from which, this revision has arisen, is valued at Rs.55,000/-(rupees fifty-five thousand) and in view of the amendment to Section 115 of the C.P.C.(Orissa Amendment) made through Orissa Gazette Ext. No.1785 dated 02.11.2010(w.e.f. 11.11.2010) Notification No.11730, Legis. Dated 2nd November, 2010, when the value of the suit vide C.S. No.43 of 2024(from which this revision has arisen) is less than rupees five lakhs, then, this revision arising out of the impugned order passed in that suit is not entertainable before the High Court on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, because, according to the above Orissa Amendment to Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908, any civil revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. like this revision at hand arising out of any suit having its value not exceeding five lakhs rupees is not maintainable before the High Court, because, the revision p. 3 under Section 115 of the C.P.C. before the High Court is maintainable arising out of an original suit or other proceedings, only where, the value of such suit or other proceedings exceeds five lakhs rupees. The learned counsel for the petitioners(defendants) did not dispute to the aforesaid Orissa Amendment to the Section 115 of the C.P.C. w.e.f. 11.11.2010. 5. So, by taking the aforesaid submissions of the leaned counsels of both the sides, the value of the suit vide C.S. No.43 of 2024(from which, this revision has arisen) and the Orissa Amendment to Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 w.e.f. 02.11.2010 into account, it is held that, this revision filed by the petitioners(defendants) is not entertainable before this Court, i.e., before the High Court, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, as the value of the suit vide C.S. No.43 of 2024 is Rs.55,000/-(rupees fifty-five thousand), which is much less than rupees five lakhs and the revision against the impugned order was entertainable before the jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before the learned Additional District Judge, Khallikote instead of this Court. 6. When, it is held that, this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioners(defendants) is not entertainable before this Court on the ground of valuation of the suit vide C.S. No.43 of 2024 for the reasons assigned above and the same was entertainable before the learned p. 4 Additional District Judge, Khallikote, then at this juncture, the ends of justice shall bestly be served, if this revision filed by the petitioners(defendants) will be disposed of finally without entering into the merits of this revision giving liberty to the petitioners(defendants) for filing of the same before the jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before the court of learned Additional District Judge, Khallikote challenging the impugned order. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid observations, this revision filed by the petitioners(defendants) is disposed of finally giving liberty to the petitioners(defendants) to file revision challenging the impugned order before the jurisdictional revisional court, i.e., before the learned Additional District Judge, Khallikote in the District of Ganjam annexing the certified copy of this judgment within fifteen days of this judgment and in case of filing of revision by the petitioners(defendants), the learned Additional District Judge, Khallikote shall entertain the same without questioning about the limitation in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, as they (petitioners, defendants) had approached the wrong forum, i.e., this Court bonafidely and shall dispose of the same as per law on merit as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties. p. 5 8. As such, this civil revision filed by the petitioners(defendants) is disposed of finally. 9. Certified copy of the impugned judgment be returned to the petitioners(defendants) substituting the same for filing of revision before the jurisdictional revisional court. 10. Parties are directed to keep the matter as it is in status quo until the approach of the petitioners(defendants) to the jurisdictional revisional court. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 31st of October, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Designation: Personal Assistant