The court can revise the valuation of a suit under Section 11 of the Court Fees Act, 1970, even if the plaintiff has made a subjective valuation under Section 7 (vi) (A), if the basis for the valuation is provided in the plaint itself.

( 1 ) THE revisional application is directed against the judgment dated 1-4-1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Barasat, 24-Parganas (North) in Misc. Appeal No. 137 of 1992 affirming the order No. 77 dated 26th March, 1992 passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Barasat, Dist. North 24-Paraganas in Title Suit No. 34 of 1987 in respect of return of the plaint to the filing lawyer due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid Title Suit No. 34 of 1987 was filed by the petitioner against the opposite party for recovery of possession in respect of 'a' schedule property of the plaint alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner purchased the property and was constructing/renovating a Cinema Hall there by spending more than 4 lakhs of rupees when the opposite party dispossessed the petitioner from the suit property by falsely claiming title thereto on the basis of certain deeds of release executed by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party. The petitioner accordingly prayed for declaration of her title and for permanent injunction. in so far as 'b' schedule property is concerned which is an analogous plot of land in 'a' schedule property the petitioner's case is that the opposite party is trying to dispossess her from the said land. The petitioner accordingly has prayed for declaration in respect of 'b' schedule property. In respect of 'a' schedule property the petitioner's prayer is for recovery of possession from trespasser along with permanent and mandatory injunction.

( 3 ) THE petitioner having made subjective valuation under Section 7 (vi) (A) of the Court-fees Act, 1970 a' schedule property and under Section 7 (iv) (B) for 'b' schedule property the opposite party raised preliminary objection before the learned Munsif that the suit is under valued and the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif by his order No. 77 dated 26th March, 1992, directed return of the plaint to the petitioner on the ground that the market value of the suit property was more than Rs. 30,000/- and therefore the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit being beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court he directed return of the plaint. An appeal was preferred against the said order and the learned Additional District Judge heard the appeal and affirmed the findings of the learne Munsif on the ground that the suit being not one for recovery of possession simplicitor, as that appears from the plaint, that the petitioner was to pay ad valorem court-fee on the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit and the valuation of the 'a' schedule land being admittedly more than rupees four lakhs the learned Munsif was right in not entertaining the suit and directing return of the plaint.

( 5 ) IT was further held that Section 7 (iv) (A) being always subject to the provisions of Section 11 of the Court-fees Act, 1970, valuation of the subject-matter, as indicated in the plaint would be the proper valuation for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction.

( 6 ) THE petitioner has challenged the 5 above findings of the learned Appellate Court in this writ petition on the ground that she is entitled to value her suit according to the value of the relief sought for and as such valuation, by its nature, is always subjective and being not capable of measured in terms of money and the suit being one for recovery of possession from a trespasser the declaration of title was not prayed for as it was not necessary and accordingly under the provisions of Section 7 (vi) (A) of the Court-fees Act she can make subjective valuation of the relief sought for in the plaint.

( 7 ) THE order was also challenged on the ground that without framing a preliminary issue in terms of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C. for short) the court was not justified in disposing of the matter. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for setting aside the o