Judgment 1. Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Plaintiff-appellant filed Title Suit No. 1 of 1992 against defendants for dissolution of partnership of M/s Kalpana Leather Tanned Industry and settlement of accounts and for other reliefs. The suit was decreed holding the plaintiff entitled to a decree of dissolution of partnership and a decree for accounts of actual disbursement of loan by defendant no. 3. 3. Defendant no. 1 filed Title Appeal No. 2 of 1996, which was heard by 3rd Additional District Judge, Deoghar and was allowed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 4.7.1998. Trial courts decree was set aside and the suit was remanded to the trial court to frame an issue on the point of valuation of suit and after fixing tentative value since framing of suit was for dissolution of partnership and accounts, to give direction to plaintiff to pay advalorem court fee on the said value and thereafter to deliver judgment afresh on all issues. 4. In paragraph 15 of the written statement, defendant no. 3 stated that suit was arbitrarily valued at Rs. 1,000/- and so it has been under valued. The suit was for declaration with consequential reliefs so plaintiff was liable to pay advalorem court fee on defendants dues of Rs. 15,32,788.75 paise, which, as calculated on 22.9.1992, was outstanding against him along with defendants 1 and 2. On the other hand plaintiffs case was for dissolution of partnership and accounts and so its tentative value was given, subject to final accounting in course of final decree and, accordingly, advalorem court fee on Rs. 1,000/- was paid. Neither defendant no. 3 asked the trial court to decide question of valuation of suit first nor any issue was framed in this regard. 5. In paragraphs 19 and 20 of the impugned judgment the court of appeal below observed as under : "19. Admittedly the plaintiffs has sought relief for re-imbursement for a sum of Rs. 7.45 lacs after selling the Industry by public auction and also prayed for a declaration that defendant no. 3 is not entitled to realize any interest. From the averments of the plaintiff, the value of the suit property cannot be less than 7.45 lacs plus the interest accrued to the defendant no. 7.45 lacs after selling the Industry by public auction and also prayed for a declaration that defendant no. 3 is not entitled to realize any interest. From the averments of the plaintiff, the value of the suit property cannot be less than 7.45 lacs plus the interest accrued to the defendant no. 3 on the date of filing of the suit and therefore I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has deliberately and arbitrarily undervalued the suit." "20. In the light of the above discussion I am of the view that if the value of the suit property exceeds Rs. 60,000/- then this court cannot hear the appeal as an appellate court and in that case the Hon ble High Court will be the appellate court. In view of the discussions made above I am of the view that this case is fit to be remanded to the learned lower court for determination of the value of the suit property after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence on that point if the party so likes." 6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the order of remand of the entire case after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court was not warranted. When the court of appeal befow came to conclusion that plaintiff deliberately and arbitrarily undervalued the suit and in its opinion determination of value of the suit property, after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence, was essential, it was open to the court of appeal below to frame and refer the said issue for trial to the trial court, retaining the appeal on its own file, directing to take additional evidence and submit the same with the finding thereon and on receipt of that finding either to decide the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law, if the vacation fixed was less than Rs. 60,000/- or to return the memorandum of appeal to be filed before the proper court with a petition under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 7. In the result, I set aside impugned judgment/order of the court of appeal below and direct it to keep the. appeal on its own file and remit the issue in question to the trial court for a finding and after receipt thereof to do the needful. 8. This appeal is accordingly, disposed of. 7. In the result, I set aside impugned judgment/order of the court of appeal below and direct it to keep the. appeal on its own file and remit the issue in question to the trial court for a finding and after receipt thereof to do the needful. 8. This appeal is accordingly, disposed of. 9. Parties herein undertake to appear before the court concerned on 11.10.1999, when in their presence necessary orders shall be passed.