This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 212. 2003 made in I.A.No.488/2002 in O.S.No.184/1996 on the file of the District Munsif Hosur.

2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.184/1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur against defendants 1 to 5 for the following reliefs:

"a)declaring the plaintiffs right and title to the suit property.

b)grant mandatory injunction to demolish the two unfinished upstairs with wall and steps (10 pillars) noted in the Commissioners plan, to remove the temporary shed as noted in the Commissioners plan as D and to remove temporary thatched wall as noted in the Commissioners plan as G, to remove the iron rods from the suit place as noted in the Commissioners plan as J and to remove the store jelly heap put up in the suit property which has been shown in the Commissioners plan as L and close the pit which has been shown in the Commissioner plan as N. (All these things mentioned above in this para have been done by the defendants after the disposal of C.R.Ps., before the High Court of Madras).

c)granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering in any way with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property."

4. Written statement was filed by defendants 1, 2 and 5 in the suit on 30.8.1996 and additional written statement was also filed by them on 20.10.2000.

5. In the additional written statement, it was specifically stated that the plaintiff has deliberately undervalued the suit for the purpose of court fee and if the suit is properly and correctly valued, it will exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of District Munsif and the suit will have to be sent to the Sub-Judge, Hosur.

6. Thereafter in July 2002, the defendants filed I.A.No.488/2002 under Sec.12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 to take up for trial the preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction to try the suit as the only issue before other issues are tried and permit them to adduce oral and documentary evidence in this behalf as per the decision of this court reported in 2002(2) CTC 513 (Gopalakrishnn, V.R. v. Andiammal).

7. The plaintiff filed a counter stoutly opposing this application by contending that the suit is already part-heard and the evidence on the side of the plaintiff is over and D.W.1 was already examined in chief in part and the decision of the High court will not apply to the facts of the case.

8. The trial court by order dated 212. 2003 allowed I.A.No.488/2002 and aggrieved by the same, the above Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the documents filed and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.

10. The defendants filed I.A.No.488/2002 under Sec.12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 to try the jurisdiction issue as preliminary issue and relied on the decision of this court reported in 2002(2) CTC 513 (cited supra).

11. Sec.12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act reads as under:

"(2)Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, not later, plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the courts decision and the deficit fee shall be paid. If the p