In a suit under Section 7 (vi) (a) of the Court-fees Act, the plaintiff is entitled to value the suit at the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, subject to the provisions of section 11 of the Court-fees Act. The court has the power to revise the valuation under Section 11 of the Court-fees Act if there is an objective standard of valuation provided in the plaint.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application at the instance of the defendants is directed against an order dated August 4, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore allowing Misc. Appeal No. 318 of 1980 and thereby setting aside the order returning the plaint passed by the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Seaidah in Title Suit No. 64 of 1974.

( 2 ) THE opposite party instituted the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of the suit premises, being premises No. 167. Gopal Lal Thakur Road. P. S. Baranagar against the petitioners. The opposite party alleged that the petitioner No. 1 on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 proposed to sell the suit premises at the price of Rs. 60,000/- with certain conditions. The opposite party accepted the same and after getting possession of the suit premises from the tenant, renovated the house and remained in possession of the same. In spite of repeated requests the petitioners did not execute and register the conveyance. It is further alleged that the petitioners forcibly dispossessed the opposite party and took possession of the suit premises on or about October 20. 1973. The opposite party prayed for recovery of possession after eviction of the petitioners. The opposite party valued the suit at Rs. 1,000/- under Section 7 (vi) (a) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970; such valuation is the valuation for the purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE petitioners contested the suit by filing a written statement denying allegations made by the opposite party. The petitioners contended that the valuation of the suit was too low and arbitrary. The said suit was to be valued at Rs. 60,000/ -. The learned Munsif by order dated July 22, 1977 held that the suit was not properly valued and the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsif, accordingly, directed the return of the plaint. The opposite party challenged the said decision in Misc. Appeal No. 502 of 1977. The learned Additional District Judge 8th Court, Alipore allowed the appeal by his judgment dated February 21. 1978 and sent back the case to the learned Court below for framing of a proper issue as to court-fee and jurisdiction. The said order came under challenge in Civil Rules Nos. 1522 and 1523 of 1978 and the said Rules were discharged on July 11, 1979. Thereafter, by order dated April 21, 1980 the learned Munsif held that the admitted valuation of the suit property, was Rs. 60,000/- and as such, the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsif directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper forum. The plaintiff again challenged the said decision in Misc. Appeal No. 318 of 1980. The learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Munsif. The learned Additional District Judge held that the plaintiff's suit was against a trespasser and the plaintiff has liberty to value the suit on the relief sought for. According to the learned Additional District Judge, the plaintiff could not be compelled to value the suit according to the subject-matter of the suit. The plaintiff has liberty to value the suit on the relief claimed.

( 4 ) THE petitioners have challenged the said order in the present revision case.

( 5 ) MR. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners are the owners of the suit property. There was an agreement for sale for Rs. 60,000/- as mentioned in para 5 of the plaint. Mr. Mukherjee argues that according to Section 7 (vi) (a) of the Court-fees Act, the suit is undoubtedly to be valued at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint e plaint but the same is subject to the provision of Section 11 of the Court-fees Act. Mr. Mukherjee argues that the Court has jurisdiction to hold an inquiry if the Court is of opinion that the subject-matter of any suit has been wrongly valued; and the Cour