THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4010 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard both sides. The petitioners herein are defendants, who filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia seeking to assail the order dismissing an application purported to have been filed under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to return the plaint for presenting it before the appropriate Court on the basis of valuation of the suit. Admittedly, the suit has been filed inter-alia not showing the total valuation at Rs.1,14,180/- but restricting for the suit relief at Rs.59,090/- and Court fee was paid at Rs.2,546/-. However, as per the application now filed, the case of the petitioner is that having regard to valuation shown for jurisdiction and the Court fee paid, it necessarily has to be filed before the Munsif Court but not before the Court below namely the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, hence, sought for return of the plaint. This application is opposed by the respondent and on consideration of the application, the Court below dismissed the said application, hence the revision. As stated above, the principal ground on which the present application purported to have been filed under Order 7 of Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, is to take note of the very valuation shown by the respondent/plaintiff and thus accordingly return the plaint. While considering so, the Court below did not acceded on the ground that since it is a case whereunder Section 24 (b) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 applies for computing the Court fee, it cannot be said that the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is same for the purpose of computing Court fee, hence the entire value of the subject matter if taken for the purpose of determining the suit value and it is not half of the value of the subject matter which is valued for the purpose of determination of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below was not right in dismissing the application when the facts give a tell tail story as to how the suit is not maintainable in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, in view of the pecuniary value shown and Court fee paid, therefore the plaint should have been returned. These submissions were repelled on behalf of the respondent contending that the question of return does not arise at this stage, nor it warrant even taking into account the valuation mentioned in the plaint. Considering these submissions and on perusal of the entire material, the point which ultimately arises is as to whether the Court below could have returned the plaint by taking into account the aforesaid valuation as mentioned in the plaint. Before considering these aspects, it necessitates to reiterate the principles laid down in Y Venkata Sesha Reddy Vs. Ch.Kousalyamma[1], to which I am also a party, necessarily the restriction has to be drawn in regard to the valuation for the purpose of Court fee under the Act, vis-à-vis the valuation of the subject matter for all other purposes. However, in view of such distinction, it necessarily calls for determination on the said question by framing an issue thereon. The Court has ample powers under Section 11 (2) of the said Act to go into the correctness of the valuation as well in regard to the Court fee, apart from for the purpose of jurisdiction, therefore, without making any such exercise, the Court below straight-away, dismissed the application without giving a specific findings as to the correct valuation, vis-à- vis that of the Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, instead of treating the application straightaway for returning the plaint and for exercise of powers as contained under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, the Court below could have treated as one which warrants for exercise of determining the correctness of the valuation and Court fee paid, which the Court can easily go into and come to its own conclusion at any stage, as per the procedure as contemplated under Section 11 (2) of the Act, which for the sake of convenience extracted below. That apart, even the principles as mentioned in the aforesaid decision were also been not adhered to. “11 Decision as to proper fee :- (2) Any defendant may plead that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficientAll questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before the hearing of the suit as contemplated by Order XVIII in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908)If the Court decides that the subject matter of the suit is not properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the subject matter of the suit shall be valued in accordance with the Court s decision and the deficit fee shall be paidIf within the time allowed, the subject matter of the suit is not valued in accordance with the court s decision or if the deficit fee is not paid, the plaint shall be rejected and the Court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit.” Hence, the order under revision dated 29.8.2008 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh disposal after framing an issue on the correctness, valuation and Court fee and dispose of the matter in accordance with law on its own merits after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. No costs. ______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J DATE: 12.8.2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4010 OF 2008 DATE: 12.8.2010 [1] 2007 (3) L.S. 121 (DB)