The court has the power to direct the plaintiff to value the suit property as per Section 25(b) of the Act and reserve the right to return the plaint for presentation before the proper Court after ascertaining the valuation of the property.

1. These two revisions are filed against the order passed in I.A.No.55 of 2010 in O.S.No.405 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur.

2. The revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.3466 of 2010 is the plaintiff in the suit and he filed the suit for declaration that he is entitled to half share in the suit property and for injunction. He valued the suit at Rs.25,000/- towards his share and according to the defendants 1 and 2, the properties worth about more than Rs.17,00,000/- and therefore, the Munsif Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the defendants 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.55 of 2010 under order VII Rule 10(1) of Civil Procedure Code for returning the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. In that application, the lower Court has found that the property was not properly valued and the plaintiff has to value the property on the basis of the market value and also held that the market value on the date of suit be not less than Rs.8,68,677/- and directed the plaintiff to take steps to amend the valuation of the suit property and pay proper court fee thereon. This order is challenged by the plaintiff in C.R.P.No.3466 of 2010 and also by the defendants 1 and 2 in C.R.P.No.2565 of 2010.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that under order VII Rule 10, such direction cannot be given by this Court and when any application is filed under Order VII, Rule 11 (b), the Court can reject the plaint, after the Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is not properly valued and therefore, the Court should not have passed such direction, directing the plaintiff to value the suit properly.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 who are the revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.2565 of 2010 submitted that the Court having come to the conclusion that the value of the suit property is not less than 8,68,677/- ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before proper Court and ought not have directed the plaintiff to amend the valuation of the suit property.

5. According to me, the lower Court considered the claims of both plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs half share will be not less than Rs.8,68,677/-. Therefore, the lower Court directed the plaintiff to value the suit property as per Section 25(b) of the Tamilnadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act and it has also been made clear that after valuing the suit property as per the direction given by this Court, if the valuation is found to be in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, further order will be passed for presentation of the plaint before the proper Court.

6. According to me, the lower Court is of the opinion that the valuation of the property may be above Rs.8,68,677/-and unless the correct market value is stated the Court to which the plaint has to be represented cannot be stated. For that purpose, direction was given to the plaintiff to value the suit property as per Section 25(b) of the Tamilnadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act and I do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court. Further under Order VII, Rule 11 (b), a plaint can be rejected only after the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaint is under valued and a direction is given to the plaintiff to value the suit properly and if the plaintiff fails to value the suit properly. In this case that stage has not reached and now the lower Court has directed the plaintiff to amend the valuation of the suit property and if the plaintiff fails to amend the valuation of the suit property as per the direction, then it is open to the defendants to invoke the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(b).

7. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.3466 of 2010 that the lower Court should not have issued such direction in an application under Order VII, Rule 10 cannot be accepted. It is s