D/L. 31. September 8, 2026. MNS. FAT No. 48 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026 + CAN 2 of 2026 Madhab Adak and others Vs. The Officer-in-Charge, Public Health and Engineering Department and others Mr. S. T. Mina, Ms. Busra Khatun, Advs. … for the appellants. Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv. …for the respondent no. 2. Mr. Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Sarbajit Choudhuri, Mr. Abhirup Das, Advs. …for the respondent no. 3. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3, at the outset, points out that the appeal has been preferred against an order (deemed decree) passed by a learned learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the valuation of the appeal is only Rs.100/-. 2. As such, the appeal ought to have been preferred before the concerned District Judge. 3. Upon perusal of the papers, we find substance in such contention. 4. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 as well as FAT No. 48 of 2026 and CAN 2 of 2026 are dismissed due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, with liberty to the appellants to 2 prefer an appeal before the competent forum, having pecuniary jurisdiction to take up the same, against the present impugned order (deemed decree). 5. Liberty is given to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants to take back the certified copy of the impugned order (deemed decree), for the purpose of presentation of the appeal before the appropriate forum, upon furnishing a photocopy of the same for the records. 6. There will be no order as to costs. (Sandip Kumar De, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)