Judgment 1. These two review petitions have been filed seeking review of the orders passed by this Court in C.R.No.118 of 1982 and M.A.No. 28 of 1982. 2. Both the civil revision and the miscellaneous appeal arose out of a common order allowing miscellaneous case preferred by opposite part no.1 under Order 21 Rule 99 of Civil Procedure Code and directing the petitioner-decree holder to re-deliver the possession of the property to the opposite party. While civil revision was dismissed on merit holding that no jurisdictional error was involved, the miscellaneous appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. 3. The petitioner preferred SLP (Civil) No. 9512 of 1986 before the Supreme Court. A plea appears to have been taken to the effect that the dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was not correct as appeal against Order passed on application under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code lay under Order 21 Rule 103. The plea apparently found favour with their Lordships who by order dated 4.11.86 while disposing of the SLP gave liberty to the petitioner to file review petition. These review petitions have accordingly been filed. 4. A preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainablility of Civil Review no. 119/86 arising out of M.A. 28/82 on the ground that the S.L.P. was preferred against the order passed in the civil revision and not in the miscellaneous appeal and, therefore, the said review petition cannot be entertained. 5. It is true that in the ordinary course two SLPs should have been filed against the orders passed in the civil revision and miscellaneous appeal but I do not wish to go into the technicality having regard to the observations of the Supreme Court. Although the SLP was filed only against order passed in the civil revision, but it is apparent that what apparently appealed to their Lordships was the fact that the appeal had been dismissed as not maintainable and that is why, on prayer made in that behalf, gave express liberty to the petitioner to file review petition. In the above view of the matter, the objection of the counsel for the opposite party is rejected. 6. Another objection has been taken as to the maintainability of the miscellaneous appeal in this Court. It is contended that as the appeal before this Court was valued at Rs. In the above view of the matter, the objection of the counsel for the opposite party is rejected. 6. Another objection has been taken as to the maintainability of the miscellaneous appeal in this Court. It is contended that as the appeal before this Court was valued at Rs. 10,000/-, in view of the relevant provisions of section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Civil Courts Act, in short) the appeal should have been filed before the District Judge. It may be mentioned here that the maintainability of the miscellaneous appeal under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code has not been disputed on behalf of the opposite party. What has been disputed is the forum of appeal. The objection in this regard also, in my opinion, has no substance. It is clear from the language of section 21(1)(a) of the Civil Courts Act that what is determinative of the jurisdiction/forum is not the valuation of the appeal but the valuation of the original suit. It is, however, contended that as the order impugned in the appeal was not passed in a suit the valuation of the suit will not determine the jurisdiction of the court/forum of the appeal. 7. At this stage it would be useful to quote sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Civil Courts Act as under : "21. Appeals from Subordinate Judges and Munsifs.(1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge shall lie (a) to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which or in any proceeding arising out of which the decree or order was made was less than ten thousand rupees; and (b) to the High Court in any other case." 8. Counsel for the opposite party relied on the words "or in any proceeding arising out of which........order was made" occurring in the above provision and contended that the Statute have used two terms, namely, suit and proceeding in continuity with each other it must be held they refer to two different things. In other words, according to the counsel, distinction should be made between appeals arising out of decree or order passed in a suit and appeals arising out of orders passed in a proceeding as distinct from suit. In other words, according to the counsel, distinction should be made between appeals arising out of decree or order passed in a suit and appeals arising out of orders passed in a proceeding as distinct from suit. The submission, in my opinion, overlooks the use of the words "of which" occurring in the clause "or in any proceedings arising out of which" in the above provision. From close reading of the provisions it is clear that what is contemplated in the section is the decree or order passed in the original suit or in any proceeding arising out of that suit. The use of the words "of which" for the second time in contrast with the words "in which" occurring in the section, in my opinion, leaves no room for doubt that the proceeding referred to In the section is the one arising out of the same very suit and not any independent proceeding. If what learned counsel argues were the intention of the legislature, after the words "or in any proceeding" the words "in which" should have been mentioned, and not the words "arising out of which". If I may say so, if the words "or in any proceeding arising out of which" were not there, there could be scope for argument as to the forum of appeal under section 21(1) arising out of miscellaneous proceeding under the Civil Procedure Code arising out of suit. In the absence of those words, while appeals from decree or order made in the suit would have been appealable before the District Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, in the case of decree or order in any proceeding arising out of such suit, it could be argued, the decree or order having been passed in an independent proceeding and not in any suit, appeal arising therefrom would not be maintainable under section 21. According to me it was in order to obviate any confusion or doubt in this regard that the words "or in any proceeding arising out of which" were also mentioned in the section. 9. According to me it was in order to obviate any confusion or doubt in this regard that the words "or in any proceeding arising out of which" were also mentioned in the section. 9. In the above view of the matter, it has to be held that for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction/forum of the appeal arising out of any decree or order, it is the valuation of the original suit which will determine the jurisdiction or forum, whether the decree or order has been passed in the original suit or any proceeding arising out of such suit. The valuation of the original suit, in the present case, being Rs. 15,000/-, as section 21(1) stood at the relevant time, appeal certainly lay before this Court under that section. The contention of the counsel is accordingly rejected. 10. The parties being unanimous on the point that the miscellaneous appeal is maintainable under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code, Shri S.K. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, submitted that the appeal may be restored and set down for final hearing. Having regard to the fact that the appeal was filed in the year 1982 and the dispute has become quite old enough, I considered it not proper to formally allow the review petitions and then to restore the miscellaneous appeal and set it down for final hearing. The more appropriate course, in my opinion, would have been to hear the appeal itself on merit. Shri Mazumdar in fact started making his submissions. In course of hearing, however, it transpired that the original records of the case called for from the court below were returned after dismissal of the civil revision/miscellaneous appeal. Counsel for the parties agreed that for proper decision of the points in issue the presence of the records would be essential. 11. In these premises, no purpose is likely to be served by keeping review petitions pending. They are, accordingly, disposed of. C.R.No.118 of 1982 and M.A. No.28 of 1982 thus stand restored. 12. Let the lower court records earlier called for by this Court and since returned, be called for and the appeal/civil revision be listed for hearing before appropriate Bench. 13. Since receipt of the lower court records may take time, the cases should not be treated as tied up.