.1. The Civil Revision petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. 269 of 1991 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Polur, for declaration of their title over the suit properties and for the relief of consequential injunction. The defendant, in the written statement has raised an objection that the suit properties, to be precise, items 5 to 7 were not properly valued. The trial Judge after framing issues, examined the witnesses concluded the trial and heard the arguments of both sides and posted the case for judgment on 13. 1996, 23. 1996 and again on 23. 1996. On 23. 1996, the learned trial Judge passed an order that the trial was concluded on 22. 1996 after the examination of the oral and documentary evidence and since it was felt that the question whether the suit items 5 to 7 were properly valued or not cannot be decided without any evidence and hence, the trial Judge passed the impugned order to the effect that to find out the real value of suit items 5 to 7 of the suit properties, they should be valued through the process of the Court. The trial Judge, therefore, directed that the suit properties viz., items 5 to 7 of the suit properties should be valued through the process of court and a report on the valuation of the suit properties should also be submitted. The plaintiff was directed to pay batta on or before 4. 1996.

2. The revision petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that it is not open to the trial Judge to order for the valuation of the properties through the process of the Court, after the evidence is recorded. According to him, under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Court Fees Act"), the issue regarding the valuation of suit properties should have been tested before the evidence is recorded and since, in the instant case, the Court has reserved judgment after the trial is concluded, it is not open to the Court to initiate the proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Court Fees Act to determine the market value of the items 5 to 7 of the suit properties. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court should have issued a Commission under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ascertaining the correct market value of the suit properties and it is not open to the Court to resort to the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Court Fees Act.

3. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Judge as the Court has merely directed that the properties should be valued so that the correct amount of Court fees can be determined.

.4. A reading of the Court Fees Act indicates that there are three stages at which the Court can determine the proper Court fee payable on a plaint, the first stage is before ordering the plaint to be registered ; the second stage is where a defendant in his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before any evidence is recorded on the merits of the case, pleads that the subject matter of the suit was not properly valued and the Court can, as a preliminary issue decide the question whether the suit property has been properly valued or not before the evidence is recorded ; and the third stage is on the basis of an objection raised by the Court-fee Examiner under Section 18 of the Court Fees Act. On the facts of the case, it is clear, it is neither a case falling under the first stage, i.e. Section 12(1) of the Court Fees Act, nor a case falling under Section 18 of the Court Fees Act, where an objection is raised by a Court-fee Examiner. The trial Court, presumably exercised its power under Section 12(2) of the Act and directed that items 5 to 7 of the suit properties should be valued through the process of the Court. The trial Judge has however over-looked that the powers unde