1. On behalf of the respondent, it is objected that no second appeal lies in this case, inasmuch as the decision of the Subordinate Judge appealed
against was not an adjudication, upon the right claimed or the defence set up, falling u/s 2 of the CPC and therefore not a ''decree'' but that it was
an ''order'' directing the return of the plaint and therefore the appeal should have been preferred u/s 588 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. We think this contention is well founded and we are unable to agree with the view taken in Bindeshri Chaubey v. Nandu ILR 3 All. 456 .
3. However, the case is one in which all that is required to be done to put matters right is a mere formal amendment in the petition of appeal, which
we allow the appellant to make.
4. Now as to the Subordinate Judge''s order itself, it is clearly wrong. In a case like this, whether it falls u/s 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, or under
14 of Act III of 1873, the value for the computation of Court fees and that for the purpose of jurisdiction are the same, viz., the value of the share
claimed by the plaintiff. The District Munsif had jurisdiction to try the suit, inasmuch as the value of such share was less than Rs. 2,500.
5.The order of the Subordinate Judge is set aside. The case should be restored to the file and dealt with according to law. We allow the appeal,
but in the circumstances, without costs.
