JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - Plaintiffs Jan Mohammad and seven others, who are arrayed as opposite parties in this revision u/s 115 CPC filed a suit seeking an injunction restraining the Defendants applicants in this Court, from interfering with their user of a piece of land and from raising any further constructions thereon. 2. For purposes of jurisdiction as well as for payment of court fee, the value of the land in dispute was put at Rs. 2200/-. The Court fee was paid on the basis of this valuation. An objection was raised by the Defendant-applicants that the value of the suit land was not less than Rs. 50,000/- so that the suit was not cognizable by the learned Munsif and further that the amount of court fee was deficient. This objection was rejected on the ground that the suit related to relief of injunction claimed by the Plaintiffs in a representative capacity so that the Plaintiffs were free to place the value of their choice upon the suit land in which they were not seeking any proprietory rights. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Syed Shah Muhammad Idris, Haidri Sajjadanashin Vs. Sheikh Muhammad Habibur Rahman and Others, AIR 1942 Patna 79 for this view. 3. In the present revision, it has been urged by Sri. D.C. Saxena for the applicants that the Plaintiffs could not be permitted to put any arbitrary value on the land in dispute and that the trial court was in error in not going into the question of the valuation of the suit land, both for the purpose of jurisdiction and for payment of court fee, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law as applicable in this State. He has urged that the market value of the land had to be determined for arriving at a conclusion about the amount of court fee payable thereon as well as for deciding whether the learned Munsif had the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. It has also been urged that the court below misdirected itself in not taking into account the examplars placed by the Defendant-applicants on the record of the case for establishing the market value of the suit land. 4. It has also been urged that the court below misdirected itself in not taking into account the examplars placed by the Defendant-applicants on the record of the case for establishing the market value of the suit land. 4. u/s 4 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh) suits, inter alia, referred to in paragraph IVB of the Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 are to be valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at the market value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought. And, in the case of land such value is to be deemed to be the values determinable in accordance with the rules framed u/s 3. Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Suits Valuation Rules, 1942 gives out the basis for deciding upon the value of land for purposes of jurisdiction in suits for possession of land. It is not necessary to reproduce the rule or notice its contents in any detail for the disposal of this Revision. Suffice it to say that the method of determination provided in this rule is virtually the same as is contained in Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (as applicable in Uttar Pradesh). 5. Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act provides in Clause (b) that in suits for obtaining an injunction, court fee is payable according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. There are two explanations to this provision which lay down that where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, the market value of such property shall be deemed to be the value computed in accordance with Sub-section (v), (vA) or (vB) of Section 7 and that in case of suits for injunction, the property which is affected by the relief sought shall be deemed to be the property involved in or affected by the relief sought within the meaning of the proviso to Sub-section (ivB). The first proviso envisages that the amount of court fee shall not be less than one fifth of the market value of the property involved or Rs. 200/-whichever is greater while the second proviso says that in case of suits falling inter alia, in Clause (b), the amount of court fee leviable shall in no case exceed Rs. 500/-. 6. In Shri Nath Singh and Others Vs. 200/-whichever is greater while the second proviso says that in case of suits falling inter alia, in Clause (b), the amount of court fee leviable shall in no case exceed Rs. 500/-. 6. In Shri Nath Singh and Others Vs. Kashi Nath Rao and Others, AIR 1951 All 570 the question was about the basis for determination of the amount of court fee payable in respect of the relief of injunction fought in regard to immovable property. C.B. Agarwala, J. who decided that case, ruled that the amount of court fee was payable u/s 7(iv)(b) and that the market value of the property had to be ascertained as laid down in Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. 7. In the present case, the question which has been canvassed with emphasis is about the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. That, as seen earlier, is to be decided with reference to the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act. A perusal of the order of the court below shows that it has not proceeded to determine that question in accordance with those provisions. As such, the order deserves to be set aside. 8. The revision succeeds. The impugned order dated October 17, 1977 is set aside. The trial court is directed to redetermine the matter in accordance with law. The stay order shall stand discharged. 9. Parties are left to bear their own costs.