Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition is directed against the final order dated 15.9.2009, passed in Title suit no. 2 of 2008, whereby learned Additional Munsif 1, Patna refused the prayer of the petitioner to decide the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. The plaintiffs-respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed Title suit no. 2 of 2008 with the following reliefs:-

(A) That after adjudication of the facts of the case mentioned above it be declared by a decree of the Court that the plaintiffs are the owners, of suit premises fully mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint and non-title of the defendant nos. 1 and 2.

(B) That it be also declared by a decree of the court that the alleged sale deed dated 17/7/1979 alleged to be executed by defendant 2nd set in favour of defendant 1st set in respect f suit plot is illegal, void, collusive, inoperative, without consideration and is not binding upon the plaintiffs.

(C) That the construction of boundary wall as well as cabin over suit plot may be removed by the order of the court directing the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to remove the same within time fixed by the court failing which the same may be removed through the process of the court.

(D) That the defendant 1st set may be restrained by an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 and 2 from making any construction over the suit property and from alienating, transferring, mortgaging and encumbering the suit property.

(E) That the cost of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

(F) That any other relief or reliefs be awarded in favour of the plaintiffs for which the plaintiffs are entitled for.

3. The petitioner who is defendant no.2 in the suit appeared and filed written statement raising amongst others, the issue of jurisdiction.

4. He states that the suit is under valued. The defendant submits that the suit land of 1979 is situated on Patna Gaya Highways measuring 72 decimals and its value in the year 2008 would be more than Rs. 6 lakh in place of Rs. 10,000/- which was the price in 1979. He submits that value of all land has increased manifold. The defendant submits that besides this the plaintiffs (respondent no. 1 and 2) also prayed for removal of cabin and other structure of the suit land which itself would value around a lakh.

5. The trial court in its impugned order observed that the market value of the property is not a criteria for valuation under section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the suit is to be valued as per the value of the reliefs sought. The trial court as such refused to take up the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the defendant petitioner has preferred this writ petition. The defendant-petitioner submits that the valuation of the suit land in the year 2008 has been stated greatly undervalued at Rs. 10,000/- which was the value mentioned in the sale deed in the year 1979. Leaned counsel submits that the present value of the suit would be about Rs.6 lakhs. Learned counsel submits that in a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction, the valuation attached to the suit assumes great importance. Counsel for the petitioner-defendant, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in case of Sujir Keshav Nayak Vs. Sujir Ganesh nayak, reported in AIR 1992 Supreme court 1526. Learned counsel has relied upon Full bench decision of this Court in case of Md. Alam Vs Gopal Singh and others, reported in 1987 PLJR 371.

7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the plaintiffs- respondents submits that the valuation of the plaint is according to the relief sought for and it is well settled that once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of Court fee, the defendant has no right to challenge the valuation.

8. The view of Full bench has been upheld by