The valuation of a suit is a must, and the obligatory duty of a Court to ascertain the same cannot be kept suspended till the final hearing of a suit. The question of valuation of a suit goes to the very root of the Court's jurisdiction to decide a suit and although it is primarily the Court's discretion to do so, and the same ought to be exercised as part of the Court's statutory obligation and not merely kept in abeyance till final hearing of the suit.

ORDER :-

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of an order dated 13th February, 2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 10th Court at Alipore, South 24 in Title Suit No. 45 of 1997.

3. The petitioner in the instant application is the defendant No. 1 in the suit pending before the learned Court below.

4. The impugned order has been passed by the learned Court below in an application filed by the defendant No. 1 on 2nd January, 1998, under Section 11 of the West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970, for an enquiry as to valuation of the subject-matter of the suit.

5. It appears that the learned Court below after dwelling at length with the respective contention of the parties went on to reject the defendant No. 1's petition by observing, inter alia as follows :-

"............Upon considering the materials on record and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the decisions of the Hon'ble Court as reported are referred to as above can be made applicable in favour of the plaintiff of the suit specifically when evidence is required prior to deal with the matters.

It may be placed on record that the Ld. advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant No. 1, contended that in suit to depose a right to pre-emption the suit is required to be valued according to the market value of the land, building or garden in respect of which right is claimed.

To substantiate the said contention he has also referred to a decisions reported in AIR (36) 1949 Calcutta 659, 1943 (47) CWB 373 and AIR (36) 1949 Allahabad 107. But so far as the factual matrix of the present case and the facts and circumstances of the present case is concerned the decisions of the Hon'ble Court as arose cited on behalf of the defendant No. 1 is to be distinguishable (sic)the instant matter is to be considered at the time of final hearing of the suit by framing an issue in this regard. Therefore, the petition as filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1 on 02 January, 1998 is liable to be rejected.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that the petition dated 2-1-1998 filed by the defendant No. 1 is rejected on contest....."

6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Section 11 of the West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970, is a special statute and the Court is required under the provisions of the said Act to cause an enquiry for valuation of a suit, if it is of the opinion that the subject-matter of any suit has been wrongly valued. Inviting this Court's attention to the provision of Section 11 of the West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970, he submits that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned Court below did not come to any decision, although it was incumbent upon the learned Court below to do so, either for or against, while finally determining the petition filed by the defendant No. 1 in the Court below under Section 11 of the West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970. In this regard, learned advocate for the petitioner invites this Court's attention to the relevant portion of the order, which has been quoted above and submits that the learned Court below never reached any conclusion as to whether the valuation of the suit was correctly made by the plaintiff or not. He submits that, moreover, although the learned Court below rejected the defendant No. 1's petition, yet it kept the matter to be considered at the final hearing of the suit by framing of an issue in that regard. He also submits that the order by itself is contradictory in nature. He relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of Taramoni Chakraborty v. Md. Ali Haider, reported in 80 CWN 1082 : (AIR 1977 (NOC) 202) and submits that the valuation of a property given by the plaintiff in a plaint is not final and the Court has power to hold an inquiry under Section 11 of the West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970, for determining wheth