JUDGMENT P.R. Sharma, J. 1. This mis appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff whose appeal was ordered by the Second Addl. District Judge, Morena to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. 2. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that no provision has been made in the Code of Civil Procedure for an appeal against an order returning the appeal for presentation to proper Court. The objection appears to be well-founded and the learned counsel for the appellant himself conceded that his memorandum of appeal may be treated as a petition in revision. Since refusal to entertain an appeal amounts to failure by the Court to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, a revision would, in my opinion, lie against an order whereby the appellate Court wrongly returned the appeal for presentation to another Court. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 38 of 1959 shall, therefore, be struck off from the register of appeals and the memorandum of appeal be admitted as a Civil Revision. 3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that a suit was originally filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,836/14/9, but later on 26-7-1950 the plaintiff applied to the trial Court that he had sold off he goods belonging to the defendant in his custody and hence the amount of the claim in suit be reduced to Rs.3,173/11/3. This prayer was allowed by the trial Court and the plaint was amended accordingly. Thereafter the suit was tried and was dismissed by the trial Court. 4. An appeal was preferred on 22-9-1955 by the plaintiff in the Court of the District Judge, Morena against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court by its order dated 3-3-1959 held that the subject-matter of the suit as originally framed being in excess of Rs.5,000 the appeal would according to S. 23 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Civil Courts Act lie to the High Court. The appellate Court by its order dated 3-3-1959 held that the subject-matter of the suit as originally framed being in excess of Rs.5,000 the appeal would according to S. 23 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Civil Courts Act lie to the High Court. Section 23 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Civil Courts Act (No. 43 of 1949) runs as under: - "23 (1)-In all suits decided by a Civil Judge in the exercise of his ordinary or special original jurisdiction, of which the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds five thousand rupees, the appeal from his decision shall lie direct to the High Court. In all other cases it shall lie to the District Court." The question, therefore, is as to what is meant by the words "the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds five thousand rupees.'' Do these words refer only to the subject-matter of the suit as originally framed and cannot include an amended claim It is no doubt well established that the forum of appeal shall be determined on the basis of the decree eventually passed either on trial or on compromise between the parties, but on the basis of the subject-matter of the suit as originally framed. But the question here is of a different nature. If the plaintiff by an amendment of his plaint relinquishes a part of the claim originally made by him in the suit can it still be said that the relinquished portion of the claim forms part of the subject-matter of the suit ? As was pointed out by Sir V. Bashyam Aiyangar J. in the case of Krishnama Chariar vs. Mangammal (1903) 26 Mad 91 the theory of an appeal is that the suit is continued in the Court of appeal and reheard there. Following this decision it was laid down by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Putta Kannayya vs. Venkat Narasyya (A.I.R. 1918 Mad. 998) that if the value of the suit does not change while it is in the first Court there is no reason to hold that that value changes when the same suit is taken to the Court of appeal. The decision in Putta Kannayya's case (supra) was followed by Happell J. in the case of In re Bhujan Sriramulu Chetty and others (A.I.R. 1945 Mad. The decision in Putta Kannayya's case (supra) was followed by Happell J. in the case of In re Bhujan Sriramulu Chetty and others (A.I.R. 1945 Mad. 194) wherein it was observed as follows: "The value of the suit must be the plaint valuation, and the plaint valuation is the value set on the suit by the plaintiff unless and until his valuation is amended.'' 5. It would follow from the aforesaid decisions that where a plaintiff amends his plaint so as to reduce his claim in suit, the subject-matter of the suit for purposes of the appeal shall be its reduced value. This would also stand the test of reason, since it would not be consistent with common sense to say that a portion of the original claim though relinquished in the trial Court itself should yet be treated, for purposes of the appeal to be the subject-matter of the suit. The subject-matter of the suit as it stood after the amendment would in this case have to be taken into account in determining the forum of appeal. 6. I would, for the reasons stated above, hold that the appeal in the present case lay to the District Court and not the High Court. It may be noted that on the date on which the appeal was returned for presentation to the proper Court the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act had already come into force and the High Court could not have entertained this appeal. 7. The appeal is, therefore, remanded to the lower appellate Court for being heard and disposed of in accordance with law. Costs shall abide the result. The appeal (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1959) which has been presented in this Court under the order passed by the Addl. District Judge be transmitted to that Court for being heard and disposed of on the merits.