JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a writ of certiorari is sought to quash the decision dated 24.5.1982 by Munsif Sadar, Faizabad, that the Civil Suit instituted by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 was properly valued and adequate courtfee thereon had been paid. It is also prayed to quash the revisional order dated 2,8.82 under Section 115 of the CPC by the District Judge of Faizabad confirming the Munsif's decision. The two orders are contained in Annexures 5 and 6 respectively, of this writ petition. 2. Opposite party no. 1 Thakur Ram Janki are the deities ins ailed in Mandir Tulsidas for whom the petitioner Mahant Ram Bachan Das wks functioning as Sarvarakar. Opposite party no. 2 claiming himself to be lawful Sarvarakar filed the suit on behalf of himself and opposite party No. 1 against the petitioner in the Munsif's Court for a declaration that he is Sarvarikar of the deity. It may be mentioned that a further relief had been sought to remove the petitioner from the management of the temple and to obtain charge of the properties thereof but that relief had been subsequently deleted, although the list of the properties annexed to the plaint was retained. In para 17 of the plaint (Annexure1) it was stated that since the property vested in the deity, the subject matter of the suit could not be evaluated in terms of money and, therefore, an estimate of Rs. 5,000 for valuation was made. 3. The petitioner stated in the written statement that the value of the property stated in the plaint and involved in the suit, by no means, was less than Rs. 2 Lacs and, therefore, the court of Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect and evaluate the property. His report is Annexure3. He described the market value of the entire property to be Rs. 81,445.10 P. 5. The learned Munsif framed Issues No. 1 and 2 to determine Whether suit had been undervalued and whether the courtfee paid was insufficient. 4. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect and evaluate the property. His report is Annexure3. He described the market value of the entire property to be Rs. 81,445.10 P. 5. The learned Munsif framed Issues No. 1 and 2 to determine Whether suit had been undervalued and whether the courtfee paid was insufficient. Relying upon the decision in the case of Sri Thakur Sitaramji Maharaj v. Raghunath Dass, (1944 All LJ 408) referred to by the learned counsel for the plaintiffopposite party, the learned Munsif observed that in a case involving a dispute regarding office of a Sarvarakar, valuation of the suit would not be done in accordance with section 7 of the Court Fees Act but in accordance with Article 17 of ScheduleII of that Act. On that basis the estimated valuation of Rs. 5,000 and a payment of Courtfee of Rs. 50 by the plaintiff was held to be correct. 6. Both these Issues were answered against the petitioner. 7. The petitioner's revision against those findings was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable. This decision was based on the view of this Court set out in the case of Satya Narain Parashar v. IIIrd Addl. District Judge (1981 Allahabad Rent Cases 255). The learned District Judge did not go into the question of the merits of evaluation of courtfee paid. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision in the case of Satya Narain Parashar (supra) is not an authority for the proposition that a revision is not maintainable even if the points in dispute affected the jurisdiction of the court. He says that a revision may not be maintainable against a mere finding on a question of evaluation, or payment of courtfee, but it would be maintainable in a case where the question of evaluation affects the jurisdiction of the court. He has referred to the case of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad (1973) 2 Supreme Court cases 524. He says that a revision may not be maintainable against a mere finding on a question of evaluation, or payment of courtfee, but it would be maintainable in a case where the question of evaluation affects the jurisdiction of the court. He has referred to the case of Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prasad (1973) 2 Supreme Court cases 524. In the case of Shamsher Singh the Supreme Court referred to the true effect of the decision in the case of Rathnavarma Raja v. Smt. Vimla (1961 Supreme Court 1299) where an observation had been made that the question whether proper courtfee was paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State and that the defendant who may believe that proper courtfee had not been paid has still no right to move the superior courts by way of appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of courtfee payable on the plaint. The court noticed that the decision related to an application of revision under Section 115 CPC and held that the ratio of that decision was that no revision on a question of courtfee lay where no question of jurisdiction was involved. It may be pointed out that in Shamsher Singh's case (supra) the matter arose in an appeal against a decree in consequence of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Even so, the observations of the Supreme Court on the maintainability of revision on a question of valuation of a suit are clear and it may be held that a revision in maintainable where the finding on the question of valuation affects jurisdiction of the court. If appreciated closely, that is also what the decision in the case of Satya Narain Parasher would show. It has not been held in the case of Satya Narain Parashar that revision is not maintainable. If appreciated closely, that is also what the decision in the case of Satya Narain Parasher would show. It has not been held in the case of Satya Narain Parashar that revision is not maintainable. What has been held is that even though the revision may be maintainable, interference in revision is not permissible in view of second Proviso to Section 115 of the CPC as applicable in U.P. The proviso runs as follows: Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where : (i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. Explanation: In this section, the expression 'any case which has been decided' includes any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding. 9. In the case of Satya Narain Parashar (supra), a suit was filed for ejectment on default of payment of arrears of rent, and the valuation was set at Rs. 2500. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the portion of the house in dispute should be valued at Rs. 25000 and as such the suit was undervalued and the courtfee paid was insufficient. The trial court h01d that since the property in suit had been let out at the rate of Rs. 15 per month, the valuation of the property set at Rs. 2500 was correct. The valuation set up by the plaintiff was upheld. A revision against that decision was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge on the ground that a decision on the question of valuation was not a case decided and, therefore, revision was not maintainable. 10. The High Court relying upon the Explanation to Section 115 CPC held that an order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or proceedings constitutes a case decided and the view of the court below to the contrary vas incorrect. 10. The High Court relying upon the Explanation to Section 115 CPC held that an order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or proceedings constitutes a case decided and the view of the court below to the contrary vas incorrect. The court then went on to state as follows: The second proviso to the above section, however, lays down that the High Court or the District Court shall not under this Section vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue except where once the order is not varied or reversed it would finally dispose of the suit or proceeding and the order if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. The decision on the issue of valuation does not finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings. The decision on the issue of valuation also does not occasion any failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made The explanation has to be read alongwith the proviso mentioned above and reading the explanation alongwith the proviso it is clear that though a decision on the question of valuation may be a case decided but it would not entitle the court to interfere in revision because of the proviso. 11. The revisional court, it will be see a, is precluded from varying or reversing, an order deciding an issue except under two conditions set out in the proviso. The condition under proviso (i) is that the order on being varied or reversed should finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding. The condition under proviso (ii) is that the order in question should occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it has been made. The above extracted view in Satya Narain Parasher's case is that the decision on the issue of valuation does not finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding and also does not occasion any failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party against whom it is male. There may be some debate on the question whether the finding on an issue of valuation does or does not finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding. There may be some debate on the question whether the finding on an issue of valuation does or does not finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding. If on a proper finding of valuation, the very jurisdiction of the court is ousted, the suit or proceeding may appear to be finally disposed of so far as that court is concerned. It may not be considered to be finally disposed of, if the expression is intended to signify the disposal of the suit or proceedings on merits. I would not like to make any further comment on this aspect of the matter, because I would think that, in any case, the decision on the issue of valuation has not occasioned any failure of justice or irreparable injury to the petitioner. The person aggrieved from the order is the petitioner and if it is found that no irreparable injury has been caused, nor any injustice has been rendered to him, the court may not interfere in view of proviso (ii). 12. After all, the issue of valuation raised by the petitioner only concerns a pecuniary jurisdiction of the court; it does not affect the competence of the court. The conflict of jurisdiction relates only to two different classes of civil court, namely, the court of Munsif and the court of Civil Judge, it does not extend to a conflict with an altogether different forum for example, with the Revenue Court or the Services Tribunal. The conflict of the latter class would involve the very competence of the court and an Inherent lack of jurisdiction; the conflict of the former type is not of a fundamental character but is rather of a technical character and would not constitute beyond an irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. A comprehensive view of the law of procedure would suggest that the court should look for the substantial justice as distinguished from technical justice. Reference may be made to section 21 of the CPC which required the court to consider whether there has been a consequential failure of justice on the question of territorial or pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the trial court. Even Section 11 of the suits Valuation Act would expect a revisional court to consider whether the undervaluation of a suit has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit on merits. Even Section 11 of the suits Valuation Act would expect a revisional court to consider whether the undervaluation of a suit has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit on merits. It has not been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the trial court's finding that the valuation of the suit has been done correctly and that the courtfee paid is adequate, the rights of the petitioner are prejudicially affected or that there has been a failure of justice in his favour. In this situation, I am not satisfied that the refusal of the District Judge to go into the further merits of the revision is erroneous in law so as to be required to be interfered with in this writ petition. 13. The writ petition is dismissed. The stay order is vacated.