Judgment :- 1. This motion is by the plaintiff against an order for payment of additional batta to the commissioners deputed for local inspection in the case. In the suit which prays alternatively for recovery of the property, filed in the Munsiff's Court, Nadapuram, the plaintiff showed the market value of the property as Rs. 1500. The basis of that valuation is given in the plaint itself as 10 years' gross yield of the property. Defendants 4 to 8 by written statement contended that the suit property, 25 acres in extent, yield more than Rs. 1500 and that, valuing at 10 times the yield, the suit should be valued at Rs. 15000 at least. On 29th September, 1967, the Munsiff settled issues and ordered "the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 100 for a plan and assessing market value". Two advocates were appointed as commission in the case. After three days' local inspection they prepared a plan of the property and a report of its yield which amounted after deduction for revenue, Rs. 2316.49 per annum. Finding that 10 times the yield (the market value) is far above the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction the Munsiff ordered return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The commissioners having submitted a further 'report' claiming additional remuneration counsel for commissioners says that a written counter thereto had been filed by the plaintiff - the Munsiff ordered Rs. 600 to be deposited as additional batta and also that the "Commissioners shall be at liberty to take out execution for the amount against the plaintiff." It is this order that is challenged in this motion. 2. Counsel for petitioner contends that once the Munsiff has found that the suit was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction he cannot pass any order in the suit and therefore the order for payment of additional batta and declaring the same to be executable is beyond jurisdiction and should be vacated. 2. Counsel for petitioner contends that once the Munsiff has found that the suit was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction he cannot pass any order in the suit and therefore the order for payment of additional batta and declaring the same to be executable is beyond jurisdiction and should be vacated. The argument may appear prima facie to carry force, but does not bear scrutiny S.19 of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act X of 1960) provides: "For the purpose of deciding whether the subject-matter of a suit or other proceeding has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient, the Court may hold such inquiry as it considers proper and may, if it thinks fit, issue a commission to any proper person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and to report thereon to the Court and the Court may pass appropriate orders as to costs". This section expressly confers jurisdiction on the Court in which a suit is filed, to 'issue a commission directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and report thereon', and also to pass 'appropriate orders as to costs' thereon. Jurisdiction is a matter for conferment by the legislature; and, in enacting the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the legislature has conferred express jurisdiction on the Court in which any suit is filed to issue a commission to make local inspection and value the property and also to fix the costs of such commission. Nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure appears to be violated by the conferment of such a jurisdiction by the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. It follows that the order issuing commission, as also the order fixing the remuneration of the commission, inclusive of the order to pay additional remuneration which relates to costs of commission, are within the powers of the Munsiff concerned. It may be that, as regards the suit, meaning thereby the trial of the suit, he has no jurisdiction; but the above said matters are preliminary to the institution of the suit and are really collateral to the suit and not in the suit as such. The present suit can be said to be properly instituted only when the plaint is filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge concerned. The present suit can be said to be properly instituted only when the plaint is filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge concerned. The contention that if the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsiff, no valid order of any kind can be passed in regard to it by the Munsiff must mean that even the issuance of the commission by the Munsiff is ultra vires his powers and the report of that commission must be null and void in law. That would render S.19 of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act meaningless. The word'Court' in that Section can mean only the Court in which the plaint is filed and which therefore is called upon to enter an enquiry on the value of the property involved therein. The order of the Court below is found to be within the powers of the Munsif. 3. As two advocates have been deputed as commission and their appointment has not been challenged by the plaintiff at any time before completion of their work, which went on for three days at the spot, the additional remuneration allowed does not appear to be so grossly excessive as to attract clause (c) of S.115 CPC. 4. I would therefore uphold the order of the Court below and dismiss this motion. In the circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs.