1. The civil revision petition involves a question of court fee, the petitioner being the plaintiff. The suit was one for injunction; and the plaintiff gave Rs. 5001/-as the jurisdiction value. And for purpose of court fee, he adopted Rs. 150/- as the value under S.27 (c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. The Subordinate Judge directed that the petitioner should pay court fee on the jurisdiction value adopted by him, that is, on Rs. 5001/-, and not on Rs. 150/-. In support of this conclusion the Subordinate judge relied on the decision of Vaidialingam J. in Joseph v. Joseph (1964 KLT. 798). The counsel of the petitioner contended, when the revision petition came before one of us, that the decision of Vaidialingam J. required reconsideration and therefore the revision petition was referred to a Division Bench. That is how the case is before us.

2. The counsel of the petitioner has drawn our attention to the recent decision of a single judge of this Court in Kalu Parvathi v. G. Krishnan (1969 KLJ. 599). The learned judge has, inter alia, considered an earlier decision of this Court in Narayani Amma v. Lakshmikutty Amma (1962 KLJ. 1270) by one of us in