JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the applicant. Perused the record. The defendant-tenant feels aggrieved by an order rejecting his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint asserting that it had been deficiently stamped. In para 12 of the plaint, a copy of which has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant, it had been clearly asserted by the plaintiff that the suit had been filed for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,406/- towards arrears of rent etc. and the valuation of the suit for the purposes of the relief relating to eviction of defendant from the accommodation in dispute was fixed at Rs. 5,726/- and the court-fees leviable thereon had been paid. Counsel for the applicant has urged that in relief (f) of the plaint the plaintiff had also prayed for a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the damages for the substantial damage caused to the accommodation as contemplated under section 12 (1) (k) of the Act. The contention is that in view of this relief the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction exceeded more than Rs. 25,000/- with are result that it ceased to be triable by the Court where it was pending. The trial Court under the impugned order has noticed that the plaintiff had given up the claim in regard to the recovery of Rs. 20,000/- as specified in relief (f). In this connection the trial Court has referred to the objection of the plaintiff wherein it had been clearly asserted that the suit had not been filed for the recovery of damages. In the aforesaid view of the matter the trial Court proceeded to hold that the suit was triable by it and was within its pecuniary jurisdiction. On the facts and circumstances brought on record, it is apparent that the plaintiff had made it clear to the trial Court that the suit is confined to the reliefs regarding to the ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent only and not for the damages of the accommodation in occupation for the purposes of which the valuation fixed fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court where the suit was proceeding. When it had been made clear by the plaintiff that no decree for Rs. When it had been made clear by the plaintiff that no decree for Rs. 20,000/- had been claimed as suggested in the relief (f) the said relief had to be taken as having been abandoned. Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record including those noticed in the impugned order no ground is made out for any interference by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision is accordingly dismissed.