JUDGMENT A.K. Kirty, J. - This revision has been filed by one of the defendants in suit No. 629 of 1964 which is pending in the court of 5th Additional Munsif, Kanpur. The facts of the case are somewhat extraordinary. The plaintiff had previously instituted an identical suit in the court of the Munsif City, Kanpur, which was registered as suit No. 951 of 1962. That suit subsequently was transferred to the court of the III Additional Munsif, Kanpur, A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the defendants that the suit had been under valued and that on a proper valuation the suit would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The learned III Additional Munsif on 4-2-1964 decided the matter and held that the total valuation of the property for the possession of which the suit had been filed amounted to Rs. 7,200/-. This valuation was held to be the valuation of the suit, both, for the purposes of jurisdiction and also for payment of court-fee. Upon the valuation assessed by the learned Munsif be held that, the suit was under valued and that the court-fee paid was insufficient. He, however, does not appear to have passed any order requiring the plaintiff to amend the valuation of the plaint. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application for the amendment of the plaint itself. This application was opposed. The learned Munsif on 18th March, 1964 passed an order holding that on the valuation determined by him by order dated 4-2-1964, he no longer had any jurisdiction to deal with the suit and that, therefore, he had also no jurisdiction either to allow or reject the amendment application. In the circumstances no effective orders were passed on the amendment application by the learned Munsif. On the same date i.e. 18th March, 1964, by another order the learned Munsif ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court mentioning that on the finding given by him on 4-2-1964 the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif. The plaint was actually returned to the plaintiff on 26th March, 1964. Curiously enough the plaintiff neither filed the plaint in the court of the Civil Judge nor did he file any appeal against the order dated 18th March, 1964 for the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The plaint was actually returned to the plaintiff on 26th March, 1964. Curiously enough the plaintiff neither filed the plaint in the court of the Civil Judge nor did he file any appeal against the order dated 18th March, 1964 for the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. He did not file a revision against the order on his amendment application. What he did was to file the same with certain minor amendments made by himself in the court of the Munsif City, Kanpur again on 80-3-1964. The plaint was this time registered as suit No. 629 of 1964. This suit was subsequently transferred by an order dated 15-7-1964 to the court of 5th Additional Munsif, Kanpur. Fresh written statements were filed by the defendants and it was again contended that the suit was under valued. In paragraph 16 of the Additional Pleas of the written statement filed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 it was stated as follows: - "That the plaintiff filed previously suit No. 951 of 1962 wherein he used the answering defendants on the same cause of action and in respect of the same property and the answering defendants raised the plea of suit being under valued and court-fee having paid insufficiently and the plea were decided in favour of the answering defendants and the plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiff did not file that suit in the court of the Civil Judge where it ought to have been filed after taking back the same as the valuation of property was held to be more than Rs. 7,200/-, but the plaintiff has filed the present in the court of Munsif City, Kanpur, wrongly showing again incorrect valuation and by paying insufficient court-fee. The present is barred by principle of res judicata so far the payment of court-fee and valuation are concerned. At any rate the market value of the subject-matter of the suit cannot be less than Rs. 9,200/- and the suit is not cognisable by this Hon'ble Court." In the written statement filed by defendant No. 3 also an identical plea was taken. At any rate the market value of the subject-matter of the suit cannot be less than Rs. 9,200/- and the suit is not cognisable by this Hon'ble Court." In the written statement filed by defendant No. 3 also an identical plea was taken. The learned 5th Additional Munsif framed the following preliminary issue: - "Whether the suit is under valued and the court-fee paid is insufficient." The aforesaid issue was decided by the 5th Additional Munsif on 2-3-1965 holding that the market value of the property in suit was Rs. 1,200/- only. Curiously enough the learned Munsif did not advert to the objections of the defendants specifically takes in the written statements or to the previous order passed by the 3rd Additional Munsif dated 18th March, 1964 holding that the value of the property which was the subject-matter of the suit and for the possession of which the suit had been filed was Rs. 7,200/-. The present revision has been filed against the finding and decision of the 5th Additional Munsif dated 2-3-1965, mentioned above. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the previous finding of the 3rd Additional Munsif dated 18th March, 1964 operated as res judicata and, therefore the 5th Additional Munsif had no jurisdiction to give him own finding on the question of the valuation of the property in suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party, however, argued that the previous finding would not operate as res judicata because according to him the finding was by a court which had no jurisdiction to the the suit. I do not think it necessary for me to give a decision on the question as to whether the finding of the 3rd Additional Munsif dated 18th March, 1964 would operate as res judicata or not. Apart from the question of res judicata, in my opinion, the 5th Additional Munsif legally was not entitled to consider the matter afresh and to record a finding thereby setting at naught the finding which had been given by the 3rd Additional Munsif. I am of opinion that the plaint which itself contained a clear endorsement that the plaint was being returned for presentation to the proper court could not again be filed or entertained in the court of another Munsif. On both the occasions the suit was instituted by filing the plaint in the court of the Munsif City, Kanpur. I am of opinion that the plaint which itself contained a clear endorsement that the plaint was being returned for presentation to the proper court could not again be filed or entertained in the court of another Munsif. On both the occasions the suit was instituted by filing the plaint in the court of the Munsif City, Kanpur. Entertaining the plaint for the second time and registering it as a suit in the court of the City Munsif clearly and directly involved complete disregard of the order previously passed on the same plaint itself by a court of competent jurisdiction, namely, the court of the 3rd Additional Munsif. This did not lie within the competence of any court of Munsif at Kanpur because all the Munsifs are Presiding Officers of courts of coordinate jurisdiction. The law itself provides a clear remedy to a party aggrieved by an order for return of plaint for presentation to proper court by way of an appeal against that order. It is only a superior court which can legally set aside the order directing return of the plaint or give a finding that the valuation determined by the court which ordered return of the plaint was incorrect. What has been done by the plaintiff in the instant case cannot on principle be permitted to be done because if such a thing is allowed then irrespective of orders passed by competent courts for return of plaint the plaintiff every time will take back the plaint and present it again in the same court or in another court of coordinate jurisdiction either without any amendment or with minor amendments only. In the instant case the plaintiff has not given up any relief in regard to possession of any of the properties in respect of which he has claimed relief of possession. Therefor the plaint which he has filed for the second' time is for all practical purposes the same plaint which was filed previously. In the instant case the plaintiff has not given up any relief in regard to possession of any of the properties in respect of which he has claimed relief of possession. Therefor the plaint which he has filed for the second' time is for all practical purposes the same plaint which was filed previously. There may be a case in which a plaintiff, whose plaint has been ordered to be returned for presentation to proper court on the ground that the court in which the suit was instituted had no pecuniary jurisdiction, may make an application for the amendment of the plaint by giving up a part of the property claimed and thereby reducing the valuation of the suit so as to bring it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court in which it had been instituted. In such a case, to my mind, there can be no objection to such a course being adopted by the plaintiff as permitting the plaintiff to do so will not in any way affect he original order passed or be in conflict with the same. There may also be a case in which the plaintiff takes back the plaint which has been ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court and thereafter decides to give up part of the claim and files the same plaint again in the same court after himself amending the valuation by giving up part of the property claimed thereby bringing it within the court's pecuniary jurisdiction. Even such a thing, to my mind, can be permitted to be done. I am however, clearly of the opinion that a plaintiff, whose plaint has been ordered to be returned for presentation to proper court after a finding given by the court in which the suit was instituted holding that on the valuation arrived at by the court the suit did not lie within its pecuniary jurisdiction, is neither legally competent nor can be permitted to file the same plaint either in the same court or in another court of a coordinate jurisdiction without any material change in regard to the subject-matter on the property or properties in respect of which relief for possession had been claimed. I am also equally of the opinion that even if a plaintiff sought to do so, the court in which the plaint is sought to be filed for the second time will have no jurisdiction to entertain the same and to register if as a suit because the very act of doing so necessarily would involve over-riding the decision previously given by a court exercising equal jurisdiction. Whether in such a case Section 11, C.P.C. or the wider principle of res judicata will or will not apply is not really a matter on which the question can be or should be decided. The real question is whether permitting such a thing to be done would necessarily involve conflict in the exercise of jurisdiction by courts having equal powers. In my opinion the answer to this question can only be in the affirmative i.e., it would necessarily involve a clear conflict of jurisdiction of two courts having identical powers. Such a thing certainly cannot be permitted. Therefore, in my opinion the order against which the present revision has been filed must be set aside. The suit which has been filed for the second time ought not to have been entertained at all but since it has been entertained and in entertaining the same the court was also partly responsible the court should pass a fresh order directing the plaint to be returned again to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court in-accordance with the order passed by the 3rd Additional Munsif, Kanpur, on 18th, March, 1964. When the plaintiff is required to make good any deficiency in court-fee on the basis of the finding dated 4-2-1964, he will have a right to object on the ground that the valuation determined was not, for purposes of payment of court fee, in accordance with law. There is another matter in regard to which I would like to make some observations. Under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. itself a clear provision has been made for rejection of the plaint in a case where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a period fixed by the court fails to do so. Under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. itself a clear provision has been made for rejection of the plaint in a case where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a period fixed by the court fails to do so. In my opinion whenever the court in which a suit is instituted holds that the suit is under-valued either for purposes of jurisdiction or for payment of court-fee, the court should require the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to make the necessary corrections in regard to valuation on the basis of the finding given by the court within the time fixed by it. If the plaintiff refuses to do so the court would be entitled to reject the plaint. If, however, the plaintiff makes the necessary corrections, the plaint so amended must be ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court, if on the amended valuation the court ceases to have pecuniary jurisdiction over the suit. If the course mentioned above is adopted then recurrence of such a thing which has been done in the present case will be very much minimised if not all together eliminated. In the circumstances mentioned above the revision must be allowed and the order of the court below dated 2-3-1965 must be set aside. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the order dated 2-3-1965. However, I direct the parties to bear their own costs because the defendants themselves do not appear to have specifically advanced any arguments on the basis of their pleas in the written statements which I have already noted above.