AMITABHA DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) - This is an application for revision of the order dated 20th June 1983 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench, city civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 940 of 1981 rejecting the plaintiff/petitioner's application under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex prate order of return of plaint on the ground that the said application is not maintainable as the order of return of plaint is appeasable under Order 43 rule 1 of the Code. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff petitioner has brought the suit for a declaration that the decree for Rs. 2,02,776. 49 p. passed in suit No 234 of 1977 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur, Maharashtra is invalid and void abs initio being vitiated by fraud on the plaintiff and the court at Sholapur and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from execution the decree. The suit has been valued in the plaint at Rs. 100/- for the purposes of payment of court fee and jurisdiction. The defendant/opposite party has filed written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint and contending that, as the proper valuation of the suit is Rs. 2,02,706/49 p. for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 3 ) THE defendant also filed an application under S. 11 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act for enquiry to arrive at correct valuation of the suit. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge framed issues on the pleadings and the issue No. 3 is on the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. ( 5 ) THE suit was adjourned from 24. 8. 82 to 24. 9. 82 for hearing of the application under S. 11 of the Court Fees Act along with Issue No. 3, and the matter were heard ex. Prate on 24. 9. 82, as the plaintiff didn't appear in court on the date fixed for hearing. The learned Judge found that the suit has not been properly valued upon the allegations in the plaint and that upon proper valuation the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In that view he ordered return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The learned Judge found that the suit has not been properly valued upon the allegations in the plaint and that upon proper valuation the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In that view he ordered return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under S. 151 of the Code for setting aside the said order dated 24. 9. 82 of return of plaint, on the ground that then plaintiff's learned advocate wrongly noted the dated fixed for hearing of the application under S. 11 of the Court Fees Act along with Issue No. 3 and so he failed to appear in court on 24. 9. 82. Which was the date fixed for hearing of the matter? The learned Judge after hearing both parties has rejected the said application under S. 151 of the Code by the impugned order on the ground that such application is not maintainable as the order of return of plaint is appeasable under Order 43 rule 1 of the code. ( 6 ) MR. Roychowdhury appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the leaned judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him as the court can in exercise of its inherent power set aside on ex prate order like the order in question though appeal able under Order 43 rule 1 of the Code as it is not a decree and Order 9 of the Code does not apply to such order. In support of this submission reliance has been place on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the cases of Bimla Devi v. Aghore Chandra AIR 1975 Cal. 80 . Reference has also been made on behalf of the petitioner to the observation of the learned Trial Judge in his order dated 24. 9. 82 of return of the plaint which is as follows: -"the plaintiff further alleged that the court at Sholapur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit according to the terms of the delivery challan. But he has adduced no evidence or produced no materials before the Court in this regard. " ( 7 ) IT is submitted that the learned Judge felt the necessity of further evidence to dispose of the matter. On the other hand it is submitted by Mr. But he has adduced no evidence or produced no materials before the Court in this regard. " ( 7 ) IT is submitted that the learned Judge felt the necessity of further evidence to dispose of the matter. On the other hand it is submitted by Mr. Bakshi appearing on behalf of the defendant/opposite party that the ratio in the Full Bench decision of this High Court cited on behalf of the petitioner is not applicable in this case as in the present case the only material necessary to determine the question of valuation of the suit is the plaint filed by the plaintiff which will be available to the appellate court to enable it to render a decision. In this connection, he has relied on Shamsher Singh v. Rajindra Prasad AIR 1973 SC 2384 (para-4) in which it has been observed that the court fee payable on a plaint is to be decided on the basis of the allegations and the prayer in the plaint to see what is the substantive relief prayed for. ( 8 ) IN my view, the submission made on behalf of the defendant/ opposite party is well founded and must prevail. In Bimala Devi v. Aghore Chandra AIR 1975 Cal 80 an application under Order 21 rule 91 was dismissed for default and the applicant moved the executing court under S. 151 of the Code to have the order of dismissal set aside. As such dismissal amounted to an order under Order 21 rule 92 of the Code, the Order of dismissal is appeal able under Order 43 rule 1 (I) real with S. 104 of the Code. The question rose whether the application under S. 151 of the Code for setting aside such order are maintainable. The Full Bench held that it is open to the petitioner to move the court under S. 151 to have the order of dismissal set aside. The ratio of this decision is that the remedy by way of appeal though available is illusory because the appellate court would have to go by the record and to determine whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause form appearing before the trial court. It is obvious that the appellate court would have no material on record to render the decision on the sufficiency of the cause and can give no relief to the appellant. It is obvious that the appellate court would have no material on record to render the decision on the sufficiency of the cause and can give no relief to the appellant. But in the present case the trial court has decided the question of valuation of the suit on the basis of the allegations in the plaint and the only material necessary for decision of the appellate court is the plaint of the suit, which is part of the record. The observation of the learned trial judge that the plaintiff has not adduced evidence or produced materials in support of his allegation that the court at Sholapur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit according to the terms of the delivery challan is irrelevant and should be ignored for the present purpose as evidence in support of the allegations in the plaint is not required for the purpose of determining correct value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction which depend solely on the averments and prayed in the plaint indicating the substantive relief asked for by the plaintiff in the suit. So in the present case in cannot be said that the remedy by way of appeal will be illusory for want of material on record enabling the appellate court to render a decision on the question of correct valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. ( 9 ) IT is also well settled that inherent powers of the court can't override express provisions of the Code which exhaust the powers of the court conversing a particular topic to provide effective remedy and cannot be invoked to cut across the powers conferred by the Code (see Arjun Singh v. Mahindra singh, AIR 1964 SC 993 ). ( 10 ) IN the result, the application for revision must fail. The Rule is discharged. Rule discharged.