Short Note : 1. The plaintiff fixed the valuation of the suit far declaration as Rs. 25,000 and far temporary injunction Rs. 100. For the relief of declaration he paid fixed Court-fees of Rs. 20 and far purposes of perpetual in junction he paid Court-fee of Rs. 20. Thus the suit was brought on Court-fee of Rs. 40. The suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia an the ground that the Court-fee should have been paid far the relief of injunction an the valuation of Rs.25,000. Issue No. 8 which deals with the question of Court-fee was taken as a preliminary issue and the learned first Additional District Judge, Gwaliar, by the impugned order held that the Court-fee was proper and sufficient. Held : It may be mentioned here that in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others ( AIR 1973 S.C. 2384 ) relied upon by the learned counsel far the petitioners, no. departure was made from the rule laid dawn by the Supreme Court in the earlier case (supra) 1961 S C. 1299. The position thus appears to be well settled that unless the question of Court-fee involves the jurisdiction of the Court, no. revision will lie against the decision on the question of adequacy of Court-fee, at the instance of the defendant. 2. But the argument of the learned counsel is that the District Judge had arranged the distribution of the work in such a way that suits of valuation up to. Rs. 25,000 were transferred to. 1st Additional District Judge, Gwaliar and those of higher valuation were retained by him on his awn file. In the first place no such order has been placed be fare me and in any case it is not denied that the first Additional District Judge had unlimited original jurisdiction and he was competent to try a suit of any valuation. Thus for argument's sake, even if it is accepted that the District Judge had so made up his mind that he would transfer suits of valuation up to. Rs. Thus for argument's sake, even if it is accepted that the District Judge had so made up his mind that he would transfer suits of valuation up to. Rs. 25,000 to the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge and retain suits of higher valuation on his own file that would not make any difference so far as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge is concerned, I am not, therefore able to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the 1st Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. In Malji v. Kesrimal (1963 JLJ 150), the suit was one far declaration and permanent injunction and the plaintiff valued the claim far the purpose of permanent injunction at Rs. 20 though he valued the suit far declaration at Rs. 11,000 far the purpose of jurisdiction. Fixed Court-fee of Rs. 20 was paid as a suit for declaration simpliciter. The learned Judge held the Court fees to be sufficient. 4. The learned trial Court relying on certain authorities held that a different valuation could be fixed for the purpose of perpetual injunction under Article 17, Sch. 2 of the Court Fees Act. I do not feel inclined to record any definite opinion as to the correctness of the view taken by the learned trial Court inasmuch as for purposes of this case it is sufficient to observe, that the question of Court-fee does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the suit and hence no revision can lie at the instance of the defendant. As observed above, in the present case whether the valuation of the suit is Rs. 25,000 or one lakh and whether Court-fee as regards injunction is paid on Rs 100 or Rs. 25,000 the suit is triable by the learned first Additional District Judge, before whom it is already pending. In this view of the matter the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No.8 cannot be called into question. AIR 1973 SC 2384 , 1964 JLJ 448 , 24 MPLC 255, 1963 JLJ SN 8 and 1963 JLJ SN 203 referred to, AIR 1961 SC 1299 , AIR 1976 All 441 , AIR 1662 Ker. 84 and 1963 JLJ 150 relied on. Revision dismissed.