Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In original suit No. 307/2012, plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owner in possession of disputed building and prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the land, building, unit of plaintiffs present over disputed property. In plaint, valuation of the suit was fixed as Rs. 40,000,00/-, and paid Rs. 500/- as Court-fee for the relief sought. In written-statement, inter alia, defendants pleaded that suit is undervalued and Court-fees paid is insufficient. On the basis of these pleading, inter alia, issue No.2 relating to undervaluation of suit, and issue No. relating to insufficiency of paid Court fee were framed by trial Court.

3. After affording opportunity of hearing on these preliminary issues No. 2 and 3, trial Court (Additional Civil Judge, S.D., Court No.8, Meerut) had passed the impugned order dated 13.12.2013, by which these issues were decided in negative and in favour of plaintiffs. Aggrieved by which, present revision has been preferred by the defendants of original suit.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that original suit has been filed apparently for the relief of permanent injunction, but in garb of it plaintiff had sought of declaration of ownership of disputed property so that he can get its possession, because he is out of possession and in fact defendants-revisionists are in its possession. He contended that in fact plaintiffs want to acquire possession of disputed property, therefore he should pay ad valorem Court-fees according to the valuation of the suit. He further contended that valuation of the property in question is more than what is pleaded in the plaint, therefore the revision should be allowed.

5. The contentions of revisionists were opposed by counsel for the respondents who pleaded that proper valuation of the suit is mentioned in the plaint and proper Court fees have been paid.

6. The Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction of hearing of the case. In present matter, it is immaterial whether the valuation of property in question is Rs. 40,000,00/- or more than it. Since any valuation of such property will be within jurisdiction of trial Court, therefore valuation of the suit is not going to have any effect on pecuniary jurisdiction of trial Court. Therefore the suit’s alleged undervaluation will not prejudice the revisionists.

7. In Sri Ratnavaramaraja v. Smt. Vimla; AIR 1961 SC 1299, Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“The Court-fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. By recognising that the defendant was entitled to contest the valuation of the properties in dispute as if it were a matter in issue between him and the plaintiff and by entertaining petitions preferred by the defendant to the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the order adjudging Court-fee payable on the plaint, all progress in the suit for the trial of the dispute on the merits has been effectively frustrated for nearly five years. We fail to appreciate what grievance the defendant can make by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate Court-fee on his plaint. Whether proper Court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. Again, the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by cls. (a) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the Court does not possess or