HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.278 of 2003 (M/S) Arya Kanya Pathshala Samiti Through it’s Manager Mr. Virendra Kumar Gupta R/o 168, B.T. Ganj Roorkee Pargana & Tehsil Roorkee Haridwar & others … Petitioners Versus Swami Shraadha Nand Siksha Samiti & others …. Respondents Dated:- 26th August, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kovid Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sidhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents. The plaintiff filed a suit for the eviction of the tenant opposite party. The tenant contested the suit by raising various grounds. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed and issue no.9 was with regard to the valuation of the suit. The trial court decided issue no.9 by its order dated 06.11.2000 holding that the valuation of the suit is to be made on the basis of thirty times the annual rental value. The defendant, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was allowed. The revisional court remitted the matter again to the trial court to redecide issue no.9 after taking into consideration of the provisions of Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act, namely, as to whether the court fee is to be payable on the basis of the market value of the property in question or not. The plaintiff, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. The only ground urged before the court is that against the order deciding the issue with regard to the valuation of the suit, no revision was maintainable at the instance of the defendant under Section 115 of the C.P.C. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla A.I.R. 1961 SC 1299, wherein it was held that 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 and, in that light, the Supreme Court held that whether a proper court fee has been paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State and the adequacy of the court fee cannot be questioned by the defendant in a revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. There is no quarrel with the above proposition enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, but, in the present case, the question is not of court fee, but, is with regard to the valuation of the suit and, in that scenario, Section 12 of the Court Fees Act comes into operation. A decision whether the valuation of the suit is properly valued or not can be objected by the defendant since a right also accrues to the said defendant, namely, as to whether the suit has been properly valued and, consequently, the suit has been filed before the appropriate court or not. In the light of the aforesaid and in view of Section 12 of the Courts Fees Act, the court is of the opinion that the revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. against an order deciding issue no.9, namely, with regard to the valuation of the suit was rightly filed by the defendant and was maintainable. Even otherwise, an issue has been decided which comes within the parameters of the provision of Section 115 of the C.P.C. and therefore the revision is maintainable. The court has also perused the order of the revisional court and is not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. In the light of the aforesaid, the court does not find 3 any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 26.08.2010 LSR