JUDGMENT
S.N. Hussain, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. The petitioners are defendants of Title Suit No. 486 of 2001 which was filed by the opposite parties for declaration of title and recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 17.12.2004 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Sub-Judge-XII, Patna, rejected the defendants’ petition dated 21.7.2004 filed under Order-VII Rule 1 and 1B of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as under Section 11 of the suit Valuation Act, read with Section 7 of the Court Fee Act, challenging the valuation of the suit and payment of ad-valorem Court fees.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier by order dated 16.4.2004 the learned Court below debarred the defendants from filing their written statement and the case was fixed for hearing under Order-VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But later after the order of this Court passed in Civil Revision No. 855 of 2003, their written statement was accepted. He further submits that after the acceptance of the written statement the petitioners filed the said petition on the ground that as per the valuation of the land given by the Registration Department of the State Government, the valuation of the suit should have been enhanced and the plaintiffs should have been directed to pay ad-valorem Court fee thereon. He further submits that their earlier similar petition was rejected by the learned court below on 16.4.2004 merely on the ground that since they were barred from filing their written statement, there was no occasion for considering the said petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that since their written statement has now been accepted in compliance of this Court’s order, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Court below to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that admittedly the question of jurisdiction does not arise as the suit is pending before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge. Hence, the matter of valuation and the Court fee is a matter strictly between the plaintiff and the Court and there is no occasion for any interference on the part of the defendants. Furthermore the plaint contains all the ingredients as required under the provisions of law and hence evidence will definitely be required for proving the case of the defendants with respect to the valuation of the suit.
6. It also transpires that the plaintiffs have raised the valuation of the suit to Rs. 5.5 lac by way of amendment in the plaint, but the said order has not even been challenged by the defendants. Had the petitioners any grievance that the valuation enhanced by the said amendment was also not correct they could have challenged the same. Having not challenged the said order it is quite apparent that the defendants are merely trying to delay the disposal of the suit, although, the learned Court below has a specifically held that the matter of valuation and Court fees will be considered alongwith other issues at the time of the trial of the suit.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly this civil revision is dismissed.