Animadverting upon the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry in I.A.No.723 of 2007 in O.S.No.271 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the revision petitioners as stood exposited from the record could be portrayed thus:

The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.271 of 2005 before the Sub Court seeking the following reliefs:

"- declaring the petitioner/plaintiff as an indigent person for declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner of "C" Schedule property which forms the eastern half of I item of "B" schedule property and item 2 of "B" schedule properties, i.e.5 items of lands described in the "B" Schedule.

.- for directing the respondents/defendant 9 and 10 to vacate and give vacant possession of "C" schedule property to the petitioner/plaintiff.

.- for mesne profits in respect of "C" Schedule property, which is valued at Rs.3,000/-p.m from the date of the suit till actual delivery of possession by the respondents/ defendants 9 and 10 to the petitioner/plaintiff.

- directing the 12th respondent to pay the rents in respect of 2nd item of "B" Schedule properties to the petitioner/plaintiff at the rate of Rs.3,000/-p.m from the date of filing this petition/plaint."

4. The revision petitioners/defendants 9 and 10 herein filed the written statement opposing the suit and also raising objection concerning the valuation of the suit. The court framed issues and posted the matter for trial. On the plaintiffs side PW1 was examined. During cross-examination the counsel for the revision petitioners put a question to PW1 relating to the valuation of the suit property. Whereupon, the witness candidly and categorically came forward with an answer that even one of the suit properties would fetch more than Rs.25 lakhs. The grievance of the revision petitioners/defendants 9 and 10 is that the suit was filed informa pauperis and at that time, the suit property was valued only in a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and odd, which was far below the actual value that should have been adopted for valuing the suit. Whereupon the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.723 of 2007 invoking Section 11(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act under Order 14 Rule 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court to take up the issue relating to valuation and payment of Court fee as a preliminary issue and decide it. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such dismissal of the interim application, the revision petitioners have filed the present civil revision petition on various grounds.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants 9 and 1, placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that the Sub Court is having no jurisdiction to proceed with the case as Section 4 of the Pondicherry Civil Court (Amendment Act 2005) would contemplate that suits of the value of Rs.5 lakhs and below alone could be tried by the Sub Court whereas the present suit admittedly, has to be valued for more than Rs.5 lakhs and in such a case, the Sub Court is having no jurisdiction; the Court fee issue also should have been taken as a preliminary issue by virtue of Section 11 of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, but the lower Court failed to do so.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners by placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2002 (2) CTC 513 (V.R. Gopalakrishnan vs. Andiammal), would argue that the Court fee issue should have been taken as a preliminary issue but the lower Court has not taken this aspect into consideration. The relevant portion is extracted here under for ready reference:

"12. According to Order-14 Rule