Judgment :- 1. This revision is really against the order of the Munsiff of Vaikom in O S.No.225 of 1974, dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had refused to comply with the court's requisition to file a valuation statement showing the market value of the property and that the application for adjournment and for time for filing the said valuation statement, bad been dismissed. The suit was dismissed for default in consequence of the order on the application for adjournment and for time for filing the valuation statement. The order refusing the adjournment and time for filing the valuation statement was passed on I.A. No. 289 of 1975 in O. S.285 of 1974. The order on the said application and the order of dismissal of the suit were both on one and the same date. 2. I regret to observe that the position disclosed is very unsatisfactory and betrays lack of sufficient close attention by the Munsiff to the requirements of the law or to the position on the facts. The suit was for a declaration of title and for injunction. The court seems to have asked the plaintiff to file a valuation statement showing the market-value of the property by its order dated 25-1-1975. The statement bad to be submitted by 31-1-1975. The plaintiff prayed for time which was granted till 5-2-1975. The statement was not filed on 5 -2-1975; but on that day the plaintiff applied for adjournment. His request for adjournment war rejected by the court on the ground that no medical certificate had been filed, that it appeared that the plaintiff wanted to protract the matter and that the presence of the plaintiff was not necessary, as all that was needed was to file the valuation statement. Consequent on the rejection of the application for time for filing the valuation statement, a dismissal of the suit also followed immediately on the same day. 3. As I observed, the Munsiff does not seem to have paid attention to the provisions of the Court-fees Act, relating to the matters involved S.10 of the Act allows the court to order the filing of a statement of particulars of the subject-matter of the suit as disclosed by the plaint. But it is not provided that non-compliance will entail a dismissal of the suit. But it is not provided that non-compliance will entail a dismissal of the suit. For default to file the valuation statement, the mode of procedure and the consequence are provided by S.12 of the Court-fees Act. The relevant portion of the section reads as follows: "12. Decision as to proper fee in other courts. (1) In every suit instituted in any Court other than the High Court, the Court shall before ordering the plaint to be registered decide on the materials and allegations contained in the plaint and on the materials contained in the statement, if any, filed under S.10, the proper fee payable thereon, the decision being however subject to review, further review and correction in the manner specified in the succeeding sub-sections. (2) Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding sub-section not later, plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the Court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the Court's decision and the deficit fee shall be paid. If the plaint be not amended or if the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected and the Court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit." In the instant case, there is no finding or adjudication by the court that the court-fee paid was insufficient. Without such a finding or adjudication, the dismissal of the suit was not justified; nor was the Munsiff correct in remarking as he did, in the course of the order that the suit was being dismissed for default. The dismissal was, in the circumstances, not for default and cannot be regarded as such. There are no grounds to interfere in revision with the order of the Munsiff in I. A. 289 of 1975 refusing to grant time for filing the valuation statement. The dismissal was, in the circumstances, not for default and cannot be regarded as such. There are no grounds to interfere in revision with the order of the Munsiff in I. A. 289 of 1975 refusing to grant time for filing the valuation statement. But the order dismissing the suit is unjustified and improper. I set aside the same and direct the Munsiff to restore the suit to file and to dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. He would, of course be free to act under S.10 and 12 of the Act. The revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and dismissed otherwise. No. costs.