ORDER Rampal Singh, J.-1. Plaintiff-appellant Smt. Gendabai, aggrieved by the order of First Additional District Judge, Guna, dated 12-5-1980, has preferred this appeal under Order 43, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The plaintiff appellant filed a suit for possession over half the portion of the suit-house. In the plaint, entire house was valued at Rs. 70,000/-. As the relief prayed was for possession of the half portion of the house; she paid the Court-fee on Rs. 35,000/-, half the valuation of the entire house. 3. Defendant/respondent in his written-statement took the objection that the value of the disputed portion was Rs. 75,000/- on the date of the suit, hence the plaintiff should pay the Court-fee on the suit valuation of Rs 75,000/- and should present the suit in the Court of District Judge, as the Court of Additional District Judge, according to the Distribution Memo had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. The trial Court, on this, framed preliminary issues and parties led their evidence. Defendant-respondent examined on expert witness, Shri Krishna, a diploma-holder in Civil Engineering. The Trial Court relied upon his evidence and in the impugned order held that the valuation of the entire suit house on the date of presentation of the plaint was Rs. 1,50,000/- and hence plaintiff should value the suit and pay the Court-fee on Rs. 75,000/-, the half of the valuation of the house. The Court further held that as he has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the Court of District Judge. 5. The impugned order was passed by the trial Court on 12-5-1980. 75,000/-, the half of the valuation of the house. The Court further held that as he has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the Court of District Judge. 5. The impugned order was passed by the trial Court on 12-5-1980. Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act was amended by Ordinance No.9 of 1978, which came in force on 26-1-1979, Section 15 (3) of the M.P. Civil Courts Act, as amended, provides that "whenever it appears to any Court, as is referred in sub-section (2) that institution of suit, appear or proceeding, pending before it, was not in conformity with the order of distribution of business made under sub-section (1), it shall submit the record of such suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be, to the District Judge for appropriate olders, and the District Judge in relation thereto may pass orders either transferring the concerned record to proper Court, as per order of distribution of business of otherwise to any other Court or competent jurisdiction." (Emphasis supplied) 6. The trial Court, therefore, ought to have allowed this procedure and submitted the record of the suit to the District Judge for appropriate orders. The order passed by the trial Court is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is accordingly set aside. The trial Court is directed to submit the record of the suit to the District Judge for appropriate orders. However, there shall be no order as to costs.