Short Note : 1. The applicant-defendant contends that since the attachment is lifted and the money is ordered to be paid back, it is his money to the extent of 19/20th share in the hands of the Court and any injunction relating to its non-disbursement has a known pecuniary value. The value could not be arbitrarily fixed at Rs. 300/- when the money sought to be detained with the Court would work out to more than Rs. 19,000/-. 2. The counsel for the non-applicants argued that the suit having been instituted in a Court which could try any civil matter of unlimited pecuniary valuation, it could not be said that the plaintiffs had put an arbitrary valuation to oust the jurisdiction of a Court or to bring it within the jurisdiction of a Court. A proper Court is seized of the matter and none of the clauses (a) to (c) of section 115, CPC was attracted. 3. In view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ratna Raja vs. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299 . I must accept the preliminary objection raised by the non-applicants and hold that the revision preferred by the defendant-applicant is incompetent. AIR 1961 SC 1299 : 23 MPLC 271 : 1938 NLJ 1 relied on. Revision dismissed.