Anil Kumar, J. – Heard Sri Mayankar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. By means of the present revision, the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Balrampur in Regular Suit No. 54 of 2007, Dharmada Committee, Bhagwatiganj, Balrampur Vs. Sanjai Tripathi and others is under challenge. 2. In brief, the fact of the present case are that the revisionist filed a Regular Suit for eviction of the respondents in respect to the property in question and the same is registered as Regular Suit No. 54 of 2007 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Balrampur. 3. The case as set up by the revisionist- plaintiff in the said suit is that the father of respondent no.1 was 'Pujari' of ' Ram Janki Mandir' appointed by the revisionist and the premises in question/ house was given to him free of cost to live and to perform 'Pooja' etc. After his death Sanjai Tripathi and Smt Laxmi Devi (respondent nos. 1 and 2), who are son and wife respectively have no concern with the temple as such have no right or locus to live in the house and the issue no .2 which has been framed by the court below is quoted as under:- " Is Ashaya se virchit kiya gaya hai ki kya vadigarh dwara vaad ka mulyankan kum kiya gaya hai tatha pratat nyaya shulk aparyapat hai ?" 4. In order to adjudicate and decided the said issue, the court below had appointed Amin Commissioner to submit the report , who accordingly submitted the same (on record as Amin's Akhya as Paper no. Ga 2/20) confirmed by the court below subject to evidence led by the parties. 5. Thereafter the court below decide the said issue on the basis of the pleadings and material evidence on record and taking into the consideration the report submitted by the Amin in respect to the valuation of the property in dispute as Rs. 13,76,300/- taking into account the said report and also that house in dispute is more then 100 years old the court below assessed the valuation of the suit as Rs.8,00,000/- by means of impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed before this Court. 6. 13,76,300/- taking into account the said report and also that house in dispute is more then 100 years old the court below assessed the valuation of the suit as Rs.8,00,000/- by means of impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed before this Court. 6. Sri Mayankar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist while challenging the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the court below submits that the said order is against the law and facts and while passing the said order the court below has committed a manifest error of law rather have exercised jurisdiction which is not vested to him and had wrongly relied the report submitted by the concerned Amin while deciding the valuation of the Suit amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- hence the order in question is arbitrary in nature and is liable to be set aside. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not disputed that the premises in question was given by the plaintiff/ late Sri Thakur Prasad in order to perform 'Pooja' etc in ' ' Ram Janki Mandir' and after his death the respondents no. 1 and 2, namely, Sri Sanjai Tripathi and Smt. Laxmi Devi are residing therein , who are the son and wife of Sri Thakur Prasad ,'Pujari' of ' Ram Janki Mandir'. In suit ( Regular Suit No. 54 of 2007) was filed for which issue no. 2 was framed in respect to the valuation of the premises to the same has been decided on the basis of the report of Amin that the valuation of the suit is Rs. In suit ( Regular Suit No. 54 of 2007) was filed for which issue no. 2 was framed in respect to the valuation of the premises to the same has been decided on the basis of the report of Amin that the valuation of the suit is Rs. 8,00,000/- Now in order to decide the controversy in the present case it is necessary to have glance to the provisions as provided in second proviso of Section 115 CPC as applicable in the State of U.P. which are quoted as under:- " Provided further that the High Court or the District Court shall not under this Section , vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, make in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where- (i) the order, if so varied or reversed , would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made." 8. From the above said fact , it is crystal clear that the revisional court can exercise its power only under two conditions when (i) the order on being varied or reversed should finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding and other (ii) the order in question should occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it has been made. 9. Accordingly, the first and foremost question which has to be decided in the present case is to the effect that in case the decision is given by the court below on the issue of valuation , the same comes within the ambit of scope of second proviso of Section 115 C.P.C. Which is applicable in the State of U.P. in order to exercise the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court or not. 10. Needless to menton that the issue of valuation raised by the revisionist only concerns a pecuniary jurisdiction of the court; it does not affect the competence of the court. The conflict of jurisdiction relates only two different classes of civil court, namely, the court of Munsif and the court of Civil Judge, it does not extend to a conflict with an altogether different forum for example, with the Revenue Court or the Services Tribunal. The conflict of jurisdiction relates only two different classes of civil court, namely, the court of Munsif and the court of Civil Judge, it does not extend to a conflict with an altogether different forum for example, with the Revenue Court or the Services Tribunal. The conflict of the latter jurisdiction; the conflict of the former type is not of a fundamental character but is rather of a technical character and would not constitute beyond an irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. A comprehensive view of the law of procedure would suggest that the court should look for the substantial justice as distinguished from the technical justice. 11. For the foregoing reasons, in any case the decision on the issue of valuation has not occasioned any failure of justice or irreparable injury to the revisionist in order to enable him to invoke the revisonal jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of C.P.C 12. No other point has been argued or pressed before me 13. Accordingly, the present revision filed by the revisionist lacks merit and is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. Revision Dismissed.