ORDER :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and final order passed by the Court below allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was filed against the respondent for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. While determining the value of the properties and paying the Court fee, the properties were taken to be ryotwari lands and therefore, the Court fee was paid by calculating 30 times of the kist value.

3. The respondent filed written statement. Even in the written statement, at para 11, a preliminary issue has been raised by the respondent with regard to the manner in which the properties have been valued and the respondent has taken a specific plea that if the properties are properly valued, the suit will go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

4. Pursuant to the completion of the pleadings, the Court below has framed issues. One of the issues that has been framed by the Court below was with regard to the valuation of the properties and the Court fee payable by the plaintiffs. The case was at the stage of examination of PW1. It is brought to the notice of this Court that proof affidavit has also been filed by the first plaintiff, who has been examined as PW1. At this stage, the respondent filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act on the ground that the value of the properties exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and therefore, the same has to be tried as a preliminary issue.

5. The Court below, after considering the materials placed on record and after considering the pleadings that were found in the plaint filed by the petitioners, came to a conclusion that the properties have not been properly valued and if the suit properties are valued as per the market value, the suit will go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the Court below proceeded to pass an order directing the return of the plaint to the petitioners to enable them to present it before the competent Court by paying necessary Court fees.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below ought not to have entertained the application filed by the respondent, since such a preliminary issue with regard to the payment of Court fees have to be decided before the case reaches the stage of evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the Court below, even without giving a finding with regard to the actual value of the properties and the Court fee payable, has proceeded to return the plaint and therefore, the Court below had exceeded its jurisdiction and on this ground alone, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in S. Saibullahkhan Vs. Hairunisha Beevi and others, 2016 (5) CTC 500.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the defendant took a very specific plea in the written statement that item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit properties cannot be considered to be ryotwari lands and they are house sites and therefore, the suit ought to have been valued by taking the market value of the properties and not by treating the properties as ryotwari lands and paying the court fees by calculating 30 times of the kist value. The learned counsel further submitted that the objection has been raised at the earliest point of time and therefore, the Court below was right in taking this issue as a preliminary issue, since it touches upon the very jurisdiction of the Court.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. The bone of contention in this case is the valuation of item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit properties. These properties were t