The valuation of a suit for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court is to be made on the basis of the valuation statement given by the plaintiff in the plaint, and the court cannot go into the question of the veracity of the valuation statement at the initial stage of the proceedings unless it appears to be absurd. Mesne profits can only be determined at the time of passing the decree, and the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits or damages can only be decided at the conclusion of the trial along with other issues.

The present revisional application is directed against Order No.18 dated 3.5.1995 passed by the 2nd Court of Assistant District Judge at Alipore in Title Suit No.72 of 1994. By the impugned order, a petition under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is taken up for consideration. The defendant filed the said petition stating therein that the suit has been valued at Rs. 12,000/- for ejectment and Rs. 19,000/- for mesne profit as a result of which the jurisdiction of the concerned Court has been invoked. The defendant has prayed before the trial Court to direct the plaintiff to withdraw the suit from that Court and to file the same before the proper Court as, according to its contention, the said Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. It has been alleged by the defendant that the suit has been over-valued and there is no basis for overvaluing the suit on the score of mesne profits. Mr. Dasgupta, the learned Advocate, has contended that the valuation made on the score of mesne profit does not fit in with the connotation of the same as envisaged in the Definition Column of Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mesne profits primarily connote the accural of those profits in favour of the person in unlawful possession of the suit property. In the said context, Mr. Dasgupta has also referred to the definition of tenant as contemplated in Section 2(h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and he has laid special stress because of non-inclusion of any person against whom any decree or order for eviction has been made by a Court of competent jurisdiction. According to Mr. Dasgupta, before the decree and/or order for eviction is passed, a tenant cannot be said to be in unlawful occupation of the suit premises and accordingly the question of mesne profits does not and cannot arise. Accordingly to Mr. Dasgupta even in the remote context of passing of a decree for eviction there is provision under a separate self-contained statute where the Court can make enquiry as to the mesne profits being determined. Mr. Dasgupta has been categorical in laying one of the corner stone of the foundation of his case by laying a categorical line of distinction between the damages and mesne profits and according to him, the same is not capable of being confused. The said controversies have arisen in the wake of disposal of a petition under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which postulates that at any stage of the suit the plaint may be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. According to the said submission this Court has been attempted to be impressed with the argument that the concept of mesne profits does not enter into the arena of consideration so long a decree of eviction is not passed. Since a tenant until a decree of eviction is passed remains in rightful occupation, therefore the concept of mesne profits does not enter into the arena of controversy.

2. This Court is primarily concerned as to the stage when the question of mesne profits can be decided. If the plaint is directed to be returned before the Court having the pecuniary jurisdiction, then the Court will be required to express an opinion as to the validity of valuation of mesne profits. This Court is not unmindful about the difficulty to arrive at an inference and/or finding about mesne profits at its threshold of the commencement of the proceeding. This Court is not oblivious of the well accepted proposition of the premis that the plaintiff has choice in respect of the valuation of the suit and the forum before which it will espouse its cause. From the reading of the valuation statement of the plaint, it appears that rightly or wrongly the valuation was given by the plaintiff. Therefore, it should have been filed before the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the bear reading of the plaint and its valuation statement. At the initial stage of