Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.:— Heard learned counsel for revisionist and perused the records. The revisionist has preferred this revision against the order dated 4.8.2012 passed by the Court of Additional District judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No.24 of 2006 (Bharat Sewa Sansthan v. Punjab National Bank), by which issue nos. 5 and 6 have been decided in negative in the above mentioned suit. Brief facts, giving rise to this revision are that the opposite party filed suit for eviction on the ground that plaintiff/opposite party is landlord, in which the defendant/petitioner is tenant. The disputed property was leased out to the defendant on 12.04.1983 through a lease deed for a period of five years with provision of extension for further five years i.e. for the maximum period up to 11.04.1993, but the defendant did not vacate after expiry of ten years period of lease and overstaying since 12.04.1993. It has also been pleaded in para 7 of the plaint that without any authority or permission the defendant has regressed to the status of tress-passer. The lease executed in favour of the defendant stands determined w.e.f. 12.04.1993. Upon the strength of this averment the defendant, who is revisionist before this Court took a plea that the suit has been under valued and insufficient court fee has been paid. These issues were serialized as issue nos. 5 and 6, which were decided as preliminary issues. The defendant did not lead any evidence. Both the issues were decided in negative. The learned Trial Court has mentioned in his order that as per plaint the defendant is in illegal occupation and not in adverse possession. The learned Trial Court has rightly decided that the plaint shall be read as a whole and a single word cannot make the entire version, of the plaint, as a whole, redundant. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist on a judgment passed on Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neelavathi v. N. Natarajan [1979-LAWS (SC)-11-12]. In this case also the Hon'ble Apex Court has disagreed to the view taken by the High Court on the basis of the reading of plaint as a whole. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the above noted case:- "All the material allegations contained in the plaint should be construed and taken as a whole, vide S. Rm. Ar. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the above noted case:- "All the material allegations contained in the plaint should be construed and taken as a whole, vide S. Rm. Ar. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar 1958 SCR 1021 and pp. 1031-32......We are unable to agree with the High Court that recitals in all the paragraphs is merely a formal statement repeating the statutory language." Even in view of this authority, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. A perusal of the plaint shows that it is badly drafted because relief (a) says "allow the plaint". The use of this word 'allow' shows absurdity of the learned counsel for the revisionist. Of course, the plaint can be rejected if any of the conditions laid down under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. are met out. In the absence of any such condition "plaint" is registered as "suit" which is decreed or dismissed. Due to bad drafting the parameters of justice cannot be changed. The plaint has to be read as a whole. This is small cause suit based upon relationship of landlord and tenant and not an ownership suit and, as such, plaintiff has rightly valued it on the basis of annual rent. It would have been a folly on the part of the plaintiff to have valued the suit on the basis of market value. Lastly, the learned counsel for the revisionist argued about some arithmetical errors in paying the court fee which were neither taken in the written statement nor find place in the memo of revision, nor they are placed before the learned Trial Court. However, if any such arithmetical error is brought to the knowledge of the learned Trial Court by the defendant/revisionist, who may, in turn, realise the deficient court fee, if any. However, defendant can bring any such deficiency to the knowledge of learned Trial Court. But there is no error, illegality, perversity or even irregularity in the order in question. With these observations, revision is dismissed. _____________