( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 2-8-1997 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam, in an unnumbered appeal in Gr. No. 2198/1996.

( 2 ) APPELLANTS before the lower appellate Court arc the petitioners herein. They filed O. S. No. 384/1987 seeking declaration of their title and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein or their subordinates, men or agents from entering into the plaint schedule site or from in any manner interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit was valued for the purpose of payment of Court-fee at Rs. 750. 00 and accordingly a Court-fee of Rs. 83. 50 was paid under Section 24 (b) read with Schedule 1 Article 1 (b) and (c) of A. P. Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. Subsequently, the suit was tried and the same was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment of dismissal, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam. The appellate Court before registration of the appeal, assessed the market value of the suit schedule property at Rs. 9,000. 00 as on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, directed the appellants-plaintiffs to pay the Court-fee on the re-assessed market value. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to have taken judicial notice of the market value that was prevalent as on the date of her passing the order and accordingly assessed the market value of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It is against the said order, the present revision is filed.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the appellate Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the Court-fee by reassessing the valuation of the suit property. It is further contended that even presuming for argument sake that it has got jurisdiction to do so, the assessment made by the lower appellate Court is without any basis whatsoever.

( 4 ) THE first limb of the contention raised by the learned Counsel has no legs to stand as under the provisions of the A,p. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the court has got power to collect the deficit Court-fee at any stage of the proceedings if it is of the opinion that the Court-fee paid is insufficient. So, it is unacceptable to contend that when once the suit is registered, the Court has no power to demand deficit Court-fee subsequently. Further, it needs no reiteration that the proceedings initiated in appeal in accordance with the provisions of any law against the judgment rendered in any original proceeding is only the continuation of the original proceeding. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellate Court has got no jurisdiction to demand payment of deficit Court-fee.

( 5 ) WHEN coming to the second contention, on a perusal of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, it is clear that the assessment of the market value of the land in question is made by the appellate Court basing on the market value that was prevalent as on the date of passing of the order. While so assessing and refixing the Court-fee, no notice is given to the appellant s Counsel. Be that as it may, for assessment of value of any property, generally the Basic Value Register is taken as a guide. The lower appellate Court did not even bother to verify the said Register before reassessing the value of the suit property. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessment done by the lower appellate Court is most unscientific. The order under revision is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

( 6 ) IN the result, the order under revision is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower appellate Court with a direction to decide the market value of the suit property afresh and fix the Court-fee and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that before passing such orders, the parties must be given an opportunity of hearing.

( 7 ) WITH the above directi