JUDGMENT :

[MANISH MATHUR, J.]

1. Heard Mr. Pritish Kumar assisted by Mr. Shantanu Gupta Advocate learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. S.K. Kalia Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Akber Ahmad learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Abhinav Bhattacharya learned counsel for opposite parties 3 and 4.

2. Learned counsel for party admit that the opposite party no.2 is in relation to the opposite parties no.3 and 4, who are already represented and notices may be dispensed with. In view of aforesaid, notices to opposite party no.2 stand dispensed with and case is being adjudicated at admission stage with consent of learned counsel for parties since no questions of fact are involved.

3. Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code Civil Procedure has been filed against order dated 3rd December, 2022 passed in regular suit No. 342 of 2015 whereby preliminary issue No.3 regarding valuation of suit and court fees paid thereon has been decided against revisionist-plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that revisionist had filed suit for partition of properties indicated in the plaint which included one residential plot, one commercial plot and a building. It is submitted that the suit was valued at Rs.2,72,12,403/-and court fees thereon was paid at 20 times the annual rental value in terms of Section 7(v)(I)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 with regard to the two plots and similarly court fees was paid as per nagar palika rental in terms of section 7(v)(II). It is submitted that aforesaid method of determining market value of the properties is one of the modes of determination thereof which has been an accepted principle in various pronouncements as per U.P. Amendment to Court Fees Act, 1870. It is submitted that however the trial court by means of impugned order while holding court fees to be payable in terms of Section 7(v)(I)(c) and Section 7(v)(II) has found the courts fees to be deficient on the ground that the revisionist-plaintiff was required to pay courts fees on the market value of the properties. It is further submitted that while indicating court fees to be paid in terms of aforesaid provisions, the impugned order does not indicate as to how the term market value has been determined by the trial court and even the short fall of court fees has not been indicated in the order leaving it to the wisdom of the revisionist-plaintiff to make good the deficiency. As such it is submitted that not only is the order impugned against provisions of Section 7 of the Act but also against settled law thereupon and is also vague.

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that it is admitted that trial court in present case has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore the opposite parties-defendants do not have any right or locus to challenge the court fees paid by revisionist-plaintiff.

6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionist with the submission that although the term 'market value' has not been defined any where in the Act but the same can not be taken to be the annual rental value particularly since the plots in question were never let out and is in fact required to be determined as per the circle rate notified by the Collector. It has been further submitted that suit being for partition of properties, there is no concept of plaintiff and defendant and all the parties to the proceedings have equal interest in the properties and therefore the defendant has a locus to raise objections regarding under valuation of suit and deficiency of court fees.

7. It has also been submitted that for proper determination of market value of the suit properties, the opposite parties -defendants had filed application No.C-144 before the trial court for issuance of commission and although objections C-155 were filed by the revisionist-plaintiff, the same has not been decided on the ground that it does not require any consideration.

8. Learned counse