Judgment 1. LEAVE is granted to the learned Advocate for the petitioners to amend the valuation of the petition. 2. THIS is an application for revision under article 227 of the Constitution, which was originally valued at below Rs.5,000/ - and was moved before our learned brother Gupta J. sitting singly. Gupta J. issued a Rule on this application on 19th November; 1969. Thereafter, when the matter came up for final hearing on 9th September, 1970, it appeared to our learned brother that the application was wrongly valued as below Rs.5,000/- and he held that, as the impugned orders were' made in a suit, valued at over Rs.2,00,000/ - the application ought to haw been valued at above Rs.5,000/-and, as, upon such valuation our learned brother would not have jurisdiction to entertain the application, he, by his order, passed on that date, recalled his previous order, dated November 19, 1969, issuing the Rule, and all subsequent orders, made by him therein. That was how the Rule, issued by our learned brother on this application, namely, C. R. 3862 of 1969, was disposed of, the net result being that all effective orders on 3 the application were recalled or withdrawn and the same remained undisposed of. There was, however, no actual order, directing return of the application to the learned Advocate for presentation to the appropriate Bench. 3. THEREAFTER, a fresh application was sought to be moved before us without certified copies of the orders, complained against, and, on our pointing out that, under the Rules of this court, all revisional applications must be accompanied by certified copies of the relative impugned orders, the learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, drew our attention to the fact that the certified copies in question had already been filed along with the above application before Gupta, J. The learned Advocate then appears to have made attempts to get back the certified copies in question and also this application, which was filed before Gupta, J. as aforesaid; but his said attempts were unsuccessful. When we were apprised of the above state of things, we proceeded to examine the matter in the light of the relevant provisions of law and decided cases (1) 53 CWN 648, (2) 34 CWN 730 and (3) 34 CWN 876. When we were apprised of the above state of things, we proceeded to examine the matter in the light of the relevant provisions of law and decided cases (1) 53 CWN 648, (2) 34 CWN 730 and (3) 34 CWN 876. On a consideration of the above, it seems to us that, in a case like the present, the application may well be returned by the learned single Judge to the learned Advocate for the petitioner for presentation to the appropriate Bench. It was pointed out to us that, as this Court is a Court of record, return of the application for presentation to the appropriate Bench may not be possible as the said application may not, in certain circumstances, be re-filed in Court. It is, however, quite clear that, at least, on the Original Side of this Court, when suits or applications are filed, which this Court is unable to entertain on account of lack of jurisdiction and the proper court for the purpose lies elsewhere, no difficulty is felt in returning the plaints and the applications for presentation to the proper court, even though this Court is a court of record. We are not quite sure why a similar procedure would not be available to this Court in matters like the present. Even assuming that, in some case, the application in question on being returned to the learned Advocate, may not be re-filed and may go out of the record of this Court, the applications, in cases like the present, may well be sent or brought from the single bench concerned to the appropriate bench, namely, the Division Bench through the office of this Court under appropriate orders. Having regard to the above considerations, we ourselves called for this application and, on the same being moved before us, we are issuing a fresh Rule today by a separate order, after necessary amendment of valuation. 4. WE have discussed the above matter in detail so that, in future a uniform practice, in accordance with law, as indicated by us above, may be followed in similar circumstances. We may also point out that the same procedure was followed, at least in one of the reported cases, referred to above, namely (3) 34 CWN 876. 4. WE have discussed the above matter in detail so that, in future a uniform practice, in accordance with law, as indicated by us above, may be followed in similar circumstances. We may also point out that the same procedure was followed, at least in one of the reported cases, referred to above, namely (3) 34 CWN 876. Indeed, the records of the said case were brought over to this Court and it was found from the order-sheet that the application there was actually received back by the learned Advocate concerned along with the annexures (vokalatnamah, certified copies etc.) for presentation to the proper Bench. This appears to have been overlooked by Chakravartti, J. in his later decision, reported in (1) 53 CWN 648, where the rule was discharged as incompetent. We do not think that that was a proper order under or in accordance with law. The same remarks apply to the other case of this Court, reported in (2) 34 CWN 730.