The pecuniary jurisdiction of a court is determined by the value of the subject matter of the suit, which is to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887.

( 1 ) THE present Revision has been filed tochallenge the validity of the order passed by the Commercial Sub Judgewhereby he decided Issue No. 5 in the suit : the said issue was regardingthe value for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction. It was held that thepecuniary jurisdiction was Rs. 48,200. 00 and not Rs. 24,000. 00 as fixedby the plaintiff. However, the Court did not return the plaint, butordered the file to be sent to the Court District Judge for transfer to acompetent Court.

( 2 ) THE history of the case is some justification for the order actually passed by the Commercial Sub Judge. The suit was instituted forrendition of accounts and partition of Joint Hindu Family property. As the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction was less than Rs. 25,000. 00the suit was properly instituted before a Subordinate Judge. At thattime, the Delhi High Court Act provided that suits above Rs. 25,000. 00had to be instituted in the High Court. Later, the valuation was raisedto Rs. 50,000. 00 in the case of the High Court and the Subordinate Judges got jurisdiction to deal with suits below Rs. 50,000. 00. Still later,the pecuniary jurisdiction of Subordinate Judges was reduced tors. 25,000. 00 and suits between Rs. 25,0001- and Rs. 50,000. 00 were tobe tried by the District Judge or any Additional District Judgs. Thislast alteration was made with effect from 1/10/1972. As it happens, this suit was instituted in 1967 and then the parties completedtheir evidence after considerable delay. It was only after the case wascomplete that the defendants moved an application seeking a trial onissue No. 5 as a preliminary issue. Thus, it came about that the preliminary Issue regarding the jurisdiction of the court was only tried asa preliminary issue after the entire evidence was complete and the casewas ready for final trial. The Court found at this stage that in view ofthe judgment of this Court (Prithvi Raj, J.) reported in Jagdish Pershadv. Jai Pershad, 1975, Raj. Law Reporter, 203 (1), the real value for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 48,200. I may mention that the originalvalue for purposes of jurisdiction was fixed on the basis of the- valuation of the plaintiff s share, but the High Court has held that the jurisdictional values has to be fixed on the basis of the whole property whichis sought to be partitioned. This is on account of the Rules framed undersection 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, by the Lahore High Courtin 1943. There are some other judgments which have taken the sameview. As at present advised, it is unnecessary to go into this questionin any detail. In fact, there is another some recent judgment deliveredby B. C. Misra J. reported as Jamila Khatoon etc. v. Saidul Nisa etc. 1977, Raj. Law Reporter 54 (2), in which it has been held that if thesuit is brought for partition and possession then Section 7 (v) of thecourt Fees Act, 1870 applies and the value for purposes of jurisdictionhas to be fixed in accordance with the plaintiff s share. Thus, the present position of law seems to be that if the suit for partition is brought by a person who is in possession or joint possession of the propertythen the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction has to be fixed in accordance with the value of the entire property. On the other hand, if thesuit is brought for partition and possession by a person who is not inpossession at all, then the value for purposes of jurisdiction has tobe fixed in accordance with the plaintiff s share and court-fees have tobe paid ad-valorem on that share. On the other hand, if the plaintiff isin joint possession, although the value for jurisdiction is higher, thecourt-fees payable is only Rs. 19. 50.

( 3 ) IN the present case, the question of jurisdiction was determined as a preliminary issue after the entire suit was ready for arguments. Thishas led the trial court to pass the impugned order dated 16/10/1976, whereby it did not return the plaint, but ordered the file to beplaced before the Di