This appeal is placed before me on the note by the Registry regarding maintainability of the claim of the counsel for the appellant that Court Fee payable in an appeal filed against an order rejecting the plaint cannot be the same Court Fee that would be payable if the suit has been disposed of on merits.

2. The appellant had paid Court Fee Rs.5/- along with appeal and the Registry had raised an objection regarding the quantum of the Court Fee payable. The learned counsel for the appellant had made an endorsement claiming that since the Order challenged is only an order made in the application seeking rejection of the plaint it is incapable of valuation and therefore, the Court Fee of Rs.5/- paid along with appeal is correct. The Registry has raised doubts regarding the claim of the counsel on the Court Fee payable. The appeal has been filed against an order rejecting the plaint in a suit for specific performance on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

3. An Application filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint in IA.No.295 of 2012 was allowed by the Trial Court on 27.07.2012. While valuing the appeal in the Memorandum of grounds it is stated as follows :

MEMO OF VALUATION
Value of the Suit	Rs. 71,00,000.00
Court Fee Paid	Rs.5,33,250.50
Value of the I.A.	Incapable
Court Fee Paid	Rs.2.00
Value of the Appeal	Incapable
Court Fee Paid	Rs.5/-

4. When the papers were placed before me by the Registry, I heard Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and reserved orders on 11.07.2017. Since the matter relates to the payment of Court Fee and decision there on would have wider ramifications, I requested Mr. V. Ayyadurai, learned Additional Advocate General to assist the Court in arriving at a just decision on the issue relating to the Court Fee payable in the appeal filed against an order rejecting the plaint under order 7 of the Rule 11 (a) or (d). Therefore, I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General also on the question of Court Fee payable.

5. Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that though an order rejecting a plaint is deemed to be a decree, what is under challenge is the correctness of the order rejecting the plaint alone and not entire subject matter of the suit. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is Article 3 of Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 that would apply to the case on hand and not Article 1 of Schedule I. Article 3 of Schedule II governs the Court Fee payable on a Memorandum of appeal from an order inclusive of an order determining any question under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not otherwise provided for. If the appeal is filed in any Court other than the High Court, the fee payable would be Rs.5/- and if it is presented to the High Court it shall be Rs.50/-, when value exceeds 5000 rupees and in any other case it is 20 rupees. Referring to Article 3 of Schedule II, Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel would contend that though an order under Order 7 Rule 11 rejecting a plaint is deemed to be a decree, an appeal against such an order would come under Article 3 of Schedule II in the category of cases "not otherwise provided for".

6. An alternative submission is also made by Mr. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel that even assuming Article 1 of Schedule I would apply the Court Fee payable is on the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute. According to the learned counsel, the subject matter in dispute in an appeal against the order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 Clause a or Clause d which is not capable of valuation. Since, it is only the right of the plaintiff to initiate the suit that is in question. He would further contend that if an appeal against the order rejec