JUDGMENT : C.K. Thakkar, J. This is an appeal filed "against an interim order passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara, on November 23, 1992, on an application below Ex. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 599 of 1992. Respondent No. 1 Sunil kumar Vipinchandra Shah, is the original plaintiff. Appellant is the original defendant No. 1 while Gujarat University and Registrar of Gujarat University are original defendant Nos. 2 & 3 respectively. 2. The plaintiff filed the above suit in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara against an action of defendant No. 1 of non-granting of admission to him being illegal, ultra vires and unlawful. Alongwith the plaint, he filed application Ex. 5 for interim relief restraining the defendants from interfering with study by the plaintiff and allowing him to prosecute the course of F.Y. B.Sc. for academic year 1992-93. That application was objected by the defendants and ultimately, the trial Court passed the following order: "The present application is granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CP Code, and consequently, the deft. No. 3, i.e., the Principal of Dabhoi Arts and Science College, Dabhoi. is restrained from taking any kind of interference or obstruction for allowing or granting admission in the class of F.Y. B.Sc., for the academic year 1992-93, as per the approval and permission issued by the deft. No. 1 i.e., the Gujarat University and if the plff. is approaching or applying for admission with enrolment application of the Gujarat University immediately." 3. The trial Court thus, practically granted mandatory relief restraining the defendants from taking any action of interference, or obstruction in allowing or granting admission to the plaintiff in F.Y. B.Sc., course for academic year 1992-93. Being aggrieved by the above order, the Principal of the college has approached this Court by filing this appeal The appeal is admitted by this Court and in Civil Application No. 4848 of 1992, interim relief against the operation of the order passed by the trial Court is also granted. Mr. S.V. Parmar, learned advocate for the appellant, states that interim relief is operative till today. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. R.S. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 contended that the appeal filed by the appellant in this Court is not maintainable. Mr. S.V. Parmar, learned advocate for the appellant, states that interim relief is operative till today. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. R.S. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 contended that the appeal filed by the appellant in this Court is not maintainable. No doubt, the suit filed by the plaintiff is numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 599 of 1992, looking to the pleadings in the plaint, and contentions thereof, it is really a Regular Civil Suit and appeal lies to District Court. Mr. Pandya in this connection drew my attention to a decision of this Court in Fihma Pathubhai Patel & Others v. Ambalal D. Bhagat and others, 1987 (1) GLH (UJ) 21, wherein earlier decisions of this Court in F.A. No. 557/84 decided on May 2, 1984 and A.O. No. 97/61 and F.A. No. 339/84 came to be considered and followed. In the instant case also, even though the nomenclature is "Special Civil Suit" and was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), it is not disputed that the valuation put by the plaintiff for the purpose of Court fee is under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act and an amount of Rs. 30/- is paid by way of Court fees. It is, no doubt, true that for valuation, under the Suit Valuation Act, the figure is put at Rs. 21,000/- but as held by this Court, the valuation put for the purpose of court fees automatically governs the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction under the Bombay Court Fees Act also and hence the appeal would lie to District Court and not to this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is required to be disposed of as having not maintainable. 5. Mr. Parmar, learned advocate for the appellant, no doubt, submitted that the plaintiff cannot take undue advantage of his own wrong, particularly when he himself has approached the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), by invoking jurisdiction of that Court and by putting a particular figure for valuation so that Court could entertain the suit. He also drew my attention to paragraph 11 of the impugned order wherein it was contended by the defendants that the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Inspite of the above contention, the plaintiff proceeded with the suit as well as with application, Ex. He also drew my attention to paragraph 11 of the impugned order wherein it was contended by the defendants that the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Inspite of the above contention, the plaintiff proceeded with the suit as well as with application, Ex. 5, and obtained an order in his favour. It does not lie in his mouth now after having obtained an order in his favour, to contend that the appeal filed by the defendants against that order is not maintainable in this Court. Mr. Parmar also submitted that the suit is pending since more than two years and when the order of mandatory nature passed by the trial Court is stayed by this Court, virtually the suit has become infructuous and no purpose will be served now by directing the appellant to file appeal in District Court against an interim order and by keeping the suit pending. In my opinion, it would not be proper on my part to make any observation on merits when the case is covered by a decision of this Court in Fihma Pathubhai Patel (supra). It is open to the parties to take all contentions before the Courts below as and when such questions arise for their consideration. 6. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as having not maintainable and the memo of appeal alongwith its accompaniment is ordered to be returned to the appellant for being presented to an appropriate Court. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 7. Before parting with the order, may observe that the Courts below will decide the case strictly on merits, without being influenced in any manner by the observations made hereinabove. Interim relief granted in Civil Application No. 4848 of 1992 which is operative till today is ordered to continue upto April 30, 1995. Appeal disposed of accordingly.