THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.2830 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool District in I.A.No.1675 of 2011 in O.S.No.53 of 2008 whereunder and whereby the petition filed by the revision petitioner-defendant under Section 11 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 read with Section 151 of CPC to try and decide the aspect of deficiency in payment of Court fee and treating it as preliminary issue, was dismissed. 2 Brief facts are that the respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.53 of 2008 against the petitioner herein. Petitioner is contesting the said suit. While the suit is pending, the petitioner filed the present petition i.e. I.A.No.1675 of 2011 requesting the court to frame the point of court fee as preliminary issue. That petition was dismissed on the ground that the court can direct the plaintiff to pay the court fee if the same is found deficient, at any time. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit schedule property was improperly valued and therefore the plaintiff has to pay sufficient court fee and hence he prayed to allow the revision. 4 On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no need to try the point as a preliminary issue because a specific and separate issue has already been framed and that at any point of time, if the court finds that the schedule of property is not properly valued, it can direct the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee. 5 Admittedly, an issue has already been framed with regard to the valuation of the property made by the plaintiff and that can be decided in the suit itself. Whether it is a preliminary issue or an issue to be decided in the suit along with the other issues, it makes no difference, because, ultimately if the court finds that the plaintiff has not correctly valued the court fee on the schedule of property, he is bound to pay that deficit court fee and for that purpose no preliminary issue need be framed. Therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the petition and the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this court. 6 This revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C. BHANU, J 08.08.2011 Kvsn