ORDER :- This revision petition is filed by the first defendant in T. S. No. 64/58/87/58, against the finding of the Subordinate Judge on a preliminary issue by which lie held that the said suit was not barred under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. 2. The first respondent had filed an earlier suit T. S. No. 82 of 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge against the petitioner, claiming title to the very same snit property. In the said suit, the petitioner contested the valuation and on 30-6-1951, the Subordinate Judge passed the order Ext. A/7 stating that the parties were present with their counsel and the matter was argued to some extent regarding the principle of valuation and that the case was adjournment to 24-7-1951 as they wanted to cite authorities. On 24-7-1951, the order Ext. A/8 was passed stating that it was adjourned to 1-8-1951 as both parties wanted further time for argument. On 1-8-1951, it appears that the first respondent was absent and the petitioner was present and hence an order was passed stating that the suit was dismissed for default. 3. In the present suit, which was again filed by the first respondent for declaration of title regarding the same property, the petitioner contended before the Subordinate Judge that the dismissal of the suit T. S. No. 82 of 1951 was under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. and that therefore the second suit filed on the same cause of action was barred under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. On this contention, issue 5 (a) was raised and the learned Subordinate Judge, gave the finding on the said issue that the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the order of dismissal for default was one passed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. as the date on which the plaintiff defaulted in appearance was the date fixed for hearing on valuation matter and hence the dismissal was not on merits and hence not under Order 9 Rule B, but under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and hence there was no bar under Order g Rule 9 C.P.C. It is against the said finding that this revision has been filed. 4. 4. It was contended for the first respondent that the petitioners counsel conceded before the Court that the dismissal of the first suit was under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and not under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. and hence it cannot be contended before this Court that the dismissal was really under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. But I cannot agree with that contention, because the question whether the suit was disposed of under Order 9 Rule 8 or under order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is a question of law,, and even a wrong concession by counsel on a question of law is not binding on the Court and the Court can still examine the question whether the dismissal of the first suit was under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. or under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. This has been held in the decision Societe Beige de Benque v. Girdhari Lal Chaudhary, AIR 1940 PC 90. In fact, I find that the Subordinate Judge himself examined that question in spite of the concession and came to the conclusion that it was under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to raise that question in revision also. 5. It is clear from Ext. A/7 that the suit T. S. No. 82 of 1951 was posted to 1-8-1951 not for hearing on the merits of the case, but only to decide the question of valuation. The first respondent had valued the suit in a particular way and the petitioner contested the valuation and the Court wanted to hear arguments on the question whether the valuation was correct or not. Thus even if the first respondent was absent on that date, the Court could at best have heard the arguments of the petitioner and seen if the valuation was correct or not and if the Court agreed with the petitioner it can at best call upon the first respondent to amend the valuation and to pay proper court-fee. The Court cannot dismiss the whole suit. By absenting himself on the date of hearing regarding valuation, the first respondent can be treated at best to have conceded that the valuation was not correct. It could have been otherwise if the suit had been posted for trial on all issues and the first respondent had absented himself on that date. The Court cannot dismiss the whole suit. By absenting himself on the date of hearing regarding valuation, the first respondent can be treated at best to have conceded that the valuation was not correct. It could have been otherwise if the suit had been posted for trial on all issues and the first respondent had absented himself on that date. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was a dismissal of the entire suit on merits for the default of the first respondent. The learned Subordinate Judge was therefore right in holding that Order 9 Rule 8 did not apply and that the second suit was not barred. The civil revision therefore fails and it is dismissed with the costs of the first respondent. Revision petition dismissed.