Honble KOKJE, J. – These revision petitions raise a common point and therefore they were heard together and are being decided together.

(2). In all these cases the trial Court has refused to allow applications moved by the defendant for the rejection of the plaint u/O. 7 R. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code hereinafter) and Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1952. According to the trial Court, the written statements were not yet filed and the question of valuation cannot be decided in absence of a plea in the written statement and an issue framed thereon. The trial Court therefore, directed written statement tobe filed before the point could be decided.

(3). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted firstly that, earlier , the Court had already passed an Order on 25.7.1991 to proceed to take evidence on the issue. However, all of a sudden on 21.10.1992 the Court reviewed the Order without application and passed a fresh Order which is the impugned Order.

(4). The learned counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that there was nothing wrong with the valuation of the suit and suit being for cancellation of SaleDeed could be valued only as per the value shown in the Sale Deed of which cancellation was sought.

(5). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(6). It appears that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the real questions in controversy and the scope of its jurisdiction while dealing with the matter of valuation. The matter of valuation of a suit can arise for determination at two different stages. It may arise on an application of the defendant for rejection of the plaint u/O. 7 R. 11 of the Code claiming that the relief claimed is undervalued or relief was properly valued but the plaint was written on insufficient stamp papers.

These cases are covered by O. 7 R. 11(b) (c) of the Code. In such cases, the Court has the power to require the plaintiff to supply the deficiency and if the plaintiff fails to do so, the plaint could be rejected. Secondly, the question can arise when it is raised in the written statement and an issue is framed on the pleadings. In such a case the Court will have to consider whether an issue can be decided as an issue of preliminary or not.

(7). In the present cases the Court refused to consider the application u/O.7 R. 11 of the Code observing that an issue relating to valuation of the subject-matter of the suit cannot be decided without framing an issue based on pleadings of the parties. There appears to be no foundation for such a sweeping observation. On the contrary when the written statement is filed and an issue as to the pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction has been raised, the Court will be precluded from deciding such an issue as a preliminary issue if the issue is merely an issue of law.

(8). In Jagdish Rai & Ors. vs. Smt. Sant Kaur(1), it was held by the Single Bench of Delhi High Court that the question of Court-fee is a preliminary point which ought to be decided by the Court before proceeding to decide on merits of the case.

In Resham Lal & Ors. vs. Anand Sarup & Anr(2), alsothe leamed Single Judge observed that issue relating to proper valuation of the suit for jurisdiction and Court fees must be tried as preliminary issue.

In Rajabala Dasi V/s Radhika chorenRoy(3), a Division Bench of the Calcutta

High Court observed that while valuing a suit attention is to be confined to the plaint alone and should not be paid to other circumstances subsequently influencing the judgment of the Court as to the value of the relief.

In Tulsi Bibi vs. Farrak Bibi,(4) another Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has observed that the question as to what the proper Court fee ought to be on the plaint depends on the allegations which are contained in plaint.

The Nagpur High Court goes a step further when in Kashinath Oke & Ors. vs. Tukaram Nilkanth Oke & Ors.(5) held that in considering the question of correct valuation the Court is not confined

Click Here to Read the rest of this document