JUDGMENT A.P. Mishra, J. - The present petition is directed as against the judgment and order dated 12th January, 1982, dismissing the revision as not maintainable, 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondents nos. 3 to 7 filed a suit against the defendant claiming themselves to be trustees of the temple situate in mohalla saran gate Rampur. A relief for mandatory injunction and restraining the petitioner from his office of pujari for the purpose of proper arrangement was sought for. In the written statement, filed by the petitioner, he denied the right of the trustees as it was denied that they are the trustees of the temple and it was further alleged that the defendant was the owner of the temple and the petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased defendant. In this suit, the question of jurisdiction because of suit being undervalued was raised. Earlier this issue was framed and on 7th March, 1980, the said issue that the suit is not properly valued was decided to the effect that the suit has been properly valued. Subsequently, when the same, issue was again raised the trial court came to the conclusion that the same issue cannot be re-agitated in and rejected it, against which a revision was filed being revision No. 99 of 1980, which is finally allowed with a direction to permit the applicant to raise that issue and decide afresh after hearing the parties. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition, counter affidavit as also the impugned order. 4. In the written statement it was averred that the suit was not valued properly and the court fee paid was insufficient. The suit was valued at Rs. 50,000/-. Subsequently, after remand when the issue was decided afresh the Commissioner valued the property at Rs. 1,41,000/- and after considering the objection of the plaintiff-opposite party the learned Munsif confirmed the Commissioner's report as final upholding the valuation given by the plaintiff on the basis of reasons given in his order. Aggrieved as against that a revision was filed by the present petitioner. The revising authority relying on the case Satya Narain Parshan v. III Addl. District Judge, Etah, (1981 ARC 255) dismissed the revision was not maintainable. I find it is here the revising authority committed an error. Aggrieved as against that a revision was filed by the present petitioner. The revising authority relying on the case Satya Narain Parshan v. III Addl. District Judge, Etah, (1981 ARC 255) dismissed the revision was not maintainable. I find it is here the revising authority committed an error. The revising authority after recording the ratio of that case that the decision on the question of valuation may be a case decided would not entitle the court to interfere in revision because of the proviso to Section 115, C.P.C. rejected the revision as not maintainable. The aforesaid ruling relied upon by the revising authority does not hold the revision to be not maintainable. Therefore, the finding to the contrary given by the revising authority cannot be sustained. It was open to the court after perusing the facts and circumstances of each case to record a finding whether in the present case it was fit case to interfere in the impugned order in revision to be not maintainable. I find the revising order to be patently illegal and is liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12th January, 1982, passed by the 1st Additional District-Judge, Rampur is hereby quashed and the case is remanded back to him for deciding the revision afresh treating it to be maintainable and then to exercise his discretion independently in terms of the decision cited by him in the impugned order. Costs on the parties.