SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

The first and second defendants, the persons against whom reliefs have primarily been sought in the suit, have applied for the plaint to be taken off the file on the ground that even if the plaintiffs’ basis for valuation of the suit were accepted, it would fall below the pecuniary threshold of receiving a suit in this court.

The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 rely on the principle recognized by Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that a suit has to be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The applicant–defendants refer to the last two paragraphs of the plaint and say that the reliefs claimed in the suit do not match up to the palpably absurd valuation indicated. The two concluding paragraphs of the plaint read as follows: -

“51. For the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.10,00,001/- and the maximum court fees of Rs.50,000/- has been paid thereon. The plaintiffs undertake to pay further court fees, if found deficient.”

“52. In as much as the value of the suit exceeds Rs.15,00,000/- this Hon’ble Court has and the City Civil Court at Calcutta does not have the jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the instant suit.”

The first and second defendants submit that the case run by the plaintiffs is that the applicant defendants had deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with the plaintiffs as advance or deposit for future supplies of aluminium roll products, obtained supply of value of nearly the amount deposited and thereafter attempted to encash cheques of value of Rs.10,00,000/- obtained from the plaintiffs. According to the applicants, the plaintiff had claimed that a subsequent concession was extracted by the applicants from the plaintiffs with the help of the defendant police officers at the headquarters of Calcutta Police. The applicants argue that even if the averments in the plaint are taken to be correct, which a challenger on a demurrer has to accept, the reliefs claimed in the suit would indicate that the value of plaintiffs’ claim would not exceed Rs.5,00,000/- and, in the event, would not cross the floor-limit to entitle the plaintiffs to bring this action before this court.

The applicants rely on Sections 9 and 11 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and say that it is a fit case for the court to inquire whether the basis on which the plaintiffs have valued the suit is completely flawed. The applicants assert that under Section 7 (iv) (b) and under Section 7(iv)(c) of the said Act of 1970, the amount of fee payable would be according to the amount at which the reliefs are sought in the plaint, but subject to the provisions of Section 11. The applicants stress on the last limb of subsection (iv) which provides that in all suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the reliefs sought.

There is nothing in the plaint, according to the applicants, to show the basis on which the reliefs had been valued by the plaintiffs. Even if paragraphs 51 and 52 were accepted as the valuation put forth by the plaintiffs for the reliefs, such valuation would be subject to an inquiry by court under Section 11. The applicants invite the court to undertake such inquiry.

The applicants rely on three judgments of this court reported at 1981 (1) Cal LJ 316 (Shambhu Nath Singh & Ors vs. Sankarananda Banerjee); AIR 1979 Cal 84 ( Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors); and, AIR 1984 Cal 366 (Asit Baran Chaudhury & Ors vs. Profulla Chandra Bose) for the proposition that the court may undertake such an inquiry under Section 11 at the invitation of the defendant to assess if a palpably absurd or patently erroneous valuation had been made for inappropriate court fees being paid on the plaint.

In the Sambhu Nath Singh case a single Judge revised an order of the Munsif upon finding that an unnaturally low valuation of the reliefs claimed had been made. The facts that the court relied on appeared from the plaint that an