( 1 ) "the defendant in this petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has questioned the order passed on 28. 4. 1994 by Shri Vinay Kumar Khanna, Sub Judge, Delhi in an application under Or. 7r. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. S

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession and mesne profits against the defendant-petitioner. After the defendant was served, without filing any written statement, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that proper Court fee has not been affixed on the plaint, therefore, plaint is liable to be rejected. It was alleged that it was a suit for possession treating the defendant to be in unauthorised and illegal possession as a trespasser. The suit ought to have been valued for the purposes of Court-fee at the market value of the property, which was about Rs. 2 crores. Plaintiff, however, had valued the suit for purposes of Court-fee at one year s rental value at the rate of Rs-327. 11 p. m. This application was strongly opposed by the plaintiff and on 28. 4. 1994 the following order came to be p