Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. Title Suit No.48/30 of 1987, valued at Rs.7,875/-and partition Suit No.211/250 of 1987 valued at Rs.70,000/- were tried analogous and decided by a common judgment. However, two separate decrees were prepared. 2. It appears that the Title Appeal Nos.103/91 and 106/91 were preferred in the court of the District Judge, East Champaran at Motihari against the two decrees aforesaid respectively. Sharishtedar of the Court objected to the maintainability of both the appeals on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. It appears that on 7th September, 1991 the learned District Judge passed order for return of the memorandum of appeal in both the appeals. Thereafter, First appeal No.766 of 1991 i. e. the present appeal and First Appeal no.767 of 1991 were filed in this Court on 16-9-1991, 3. The stamp reporter has pointed out that in view of the decision of this Court in Bhim Singh V/s. Mohan Lal Agrawal V, 1991 BBCJ 459 : 1992 (1)BLJ 141 (RB) (JOB), this appeal is not maintainable in this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant accepts the stamp report. 4. It is obvious from the narration of facts that although two suits have been decided by a common judgment, in view of the valuation of the suit, so far as Title Suit No.48/30 of 1987 is concerned, the appeal lay in the court of the District Judge. I fail to understand as to on what basis the office of the District Judge reported that Title Appeal No.103 of 1971 was not maintainable fur want of pecuniary jurisdiction. If the two suits were tried analogous and the evidence adduced in both the suits as also the judgment is common, the proper course is to make an order by the High court withdrawal of the appeal and for its hearing along with First Appeal no.767 of 1991, in terms of Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure I have no manner of doubt so far as the maintainability of Title Appeal no.103 of 1991 is concerned, that the same was maintainable in the court of the District Judge. The learned District Judge should have been more careful in passing the order in regard to the return of the memorandum so far as title Appeal No.103 of 1991 is concerned. The learned District Judge should have been more careful in passing the order in regard to the return of the memorandum so far as title Appeal No.103 of 1991 is concerned. It is unfortunate that on account of mistake of the court, the party has had to run from pillar to post. However, i have no option bat to direct that the party memorandum of appeal be returned again to the appellant for its presentation in the court of the District judge in accordance with law. 5. Needless to say that it will be open to the appellant to make an application under Section- 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this court for its withdrawal and transfer so that the same may be heard along with ether appeal. Decided accordingly.