1. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner and Sri Neeli Narsappa, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in I.A.No.323/2007 in O.S.No.305/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthi as against an order made therein dated 24-9-2007.

3. This Court ordered notice before admission on 23-1-2008 and granted interim suspension for a limited period which is being extended from time to time. On 15-4-2008 while admitting the Civil Revision Petition, this Court extended the interim suspension already granted until further orders. Thus, the Civil Revision Petition is coming up for Final Hearing today.

4. The application aforesaid was filed by the 1st respondent herein/1st defendant in the suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (b) r/w. Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience), to reject the plaint in O.S.No.305/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy on the ground that the plaintiff relied upon sale deeds dated 27-8-2005, 29-8-2005 for Rs.2,28,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/-, in toto amounting to Rs.4,53,000/-, out of which 1/4th would be Rs.1,13,250/-, which amount is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court concerned since the relief prayed for is declaration that the decree in O.S.No.125/2005 is null and void and the consequential relief of cancellation of the same in which the valuation had been given on the strength of the Valuation Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar which cannot be permitted and hence the said relief to be granted. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, after recording respective contentions of the parties ultimately made the following order:

"In the result, the respondent/plaintiff is directed to file an application for amendment of plaint showing the present market value of the suit lands as Rs.4,53,000/- as per sale consideration of Registered Sale deeds dated 27-8-2005 and 29-8-2005 paid by it and show the 1/4th of the value of the suit lands is Rs.1,13,250/- and pay deficit Court fee thereon under Section 37 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act and after amendment of plaint and payment of deficit Court fee, the plaint will be returned to the plaintiff for its presentation before the proper Court having pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is ordered. No costs".

The said order is impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Sri K. Srinivas, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner would maintain that when an application of this nature under Order VII Rule 11 had been moved, the only question that should have been decided by the learned Judge is whether on any of the grounds the plaint is liable to be rejected or not and not beyond thereto. The learned Counsel also would maintain that if it is a case concerned with payment of Court fee or want of pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the remedy is otherwise to move an appropriate application in this regard and to give opportunity to the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff to contest the same and the method and the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in recording certain findings that valuation given by the plaintiff cannot be accepted and further recording a finding that in the light of the sale deeds since the quantum would exceed the pecuniary limits of the Court concerned and issuing certain further directions for presentation of the plaint before the proper Court, definitely cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on Rule 3 of A.P.Court Fee and Suits Valuation Rules 1987 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Rules" for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that inasmuch as prima facie the value had been accepted and the suit had been registered, now an order of this nature cannot be made. The learned Counsel also further would maintain that this i