JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - This revision has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 74 of 1983-1 of the Court of Additional Munsif, Balasore, against an order passed by the learned Additional Munsif directing the plaintiffs to take return of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10-A of the Code" of Civil Procedure. At the stage of admission, notice of admission and hearing was sent to the opp. parties pursuant to which some of the opp. parties had appeared and contested the case. 2. The plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit have .prayed for a declaration that certain sale deeds are sham, collusive and inoperative and for partition of schedules 'B' and 'C properties by metes andd bounds. The suit was valued at Rs. 1850/- and fixed court-fee worth Rs. 22. 50 was paid thereon. The defendants appeared in different sets and filed separate written statement. Six issues were framed by the Court whereafter date of hearing was fixed Un the date of hearing plaintiffs began examining their witnesses. Plaintiff No. 2 was the first witness on that day. He proved a sale deed marked as Ext. 9 wherein 5 decimals of land conveyed therein was sold for a price of Rs. 2500/-. Immediately after his examination was over, an application purported to be one under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC was filed praying therein to return the plaint on the ground that the Court of Munsif in which the suit was filed had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The prayer made in the said application was objected by the present petitioners. The learned trial Court after hearing both parties came to a conclusion that on the basis of the valuation of land disclosed in Ext. 9, the value of the suit properties would be more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court for which reason the plaint must be returned and be filed in the proper Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the legality of the aforesaid order. Mr. Swamy, appearing for opp. parties 6 & 7 contended that the order for returning the plaint being appealable, this revision is not entertainable. He also contended that since the valuation of the land at which the homestead land are being sold in the locality has been admitted by PW 1 which is in conformity with the valuation expressed in Ext. Swamy, appearing for opp. parties 6 & 7 contended that the order for returning the plaint being appealable, this revision is not entertainable. He also contended that since the valuation of the land at which the homestead land are being sold in the locality has been admitted by PW 1 which is in conformity with the valuation expressed in Ext. 9, the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and, therefore, the return of the plaint was legally justified. 4. The lower Court record was called for to appreciate the procedure adopted by the Munsif in disposing of the application purporting to be one under Order 14, Rule 2, CPC. It is no doubt correct that an order passed under Order 7, Rule 10, CPC is appealable. After the introduction of Rule 10-A, a further clause had been added to Order 43, Rule 1 (a) to the effect that an order made under Order 7. Rule 10 shall be appealable except where the procedures specified in Rule 10 A of CPC has been followed. In other words the insertion of the said clause by the Amendment Act of 1976 excludes an order under Order 7, Rule 10, CPC from being appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 where the procedure laid down in Order .7, Rule 10-A has been followed. The impugned order itself shows that .the Court had directed the plaintiffs under Order 7, Rule 10-A, CPC. to take return of the plaint and to further intimate the Court specifying in which Court they intend to present the plaint. Thus is by strict interpretation of the said rule, it cannot be said that the appeal lies against the imgugned order under Order 43, Rule 1(a) of the CPC. That apart the Court has adopted a procedure which is not available in the facts and circumstances of the case. As already pointed out, it is not, a case where the plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiffs at the time or soon after its presentation. Even though some of the defendants have taken the plea that the Court lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to enter- tain the suit, no issue has been framed in that behalf in the absence of an issue as to whether the Court had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the parties cannot be expected to lead evidence on the said question. In this background when PW 1 was examined and cross-examined, an application under Order 14, Rule 2, CPC was then filed by the contesting defendants. But the prayer made in the said application was to return the plaint. Such prayer is not available to be made in an application under Order 14, Rule 2, CPC. Order 14, Rule 2(2) provides : "Order 14, Rule 2(2)_where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to__ (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. xx xx xx In the event the Court takes recourse to decide such an issue as a prelimi- nary issue, it may postpone the decision on other issues after that issue has been determined. As already pointed out, there was no issue framed at all relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court nor such an issue can generally be said to be an issue of law. Thus the Court could not exercise jurisdiction under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC to direct the hearing of an issue relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court as a preliminary issue. The Court has lost sight of the provison contained in Order 14, Rule 2 CPC which in specific terms provides that : "Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on. a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provision of Sub-rule(2), pronounce judgment on all issues" The Court in this case neither exercised jurisdiction - under Order 14, Rule.2, CPC by directing any issue to be tried as a preliminary issue nor did it put the parties to notice that the question of pecuniary jurisdiction would be taken up as a preliminary issue. Further irregularity and illegality in exercise of the jurisdiction by the Court has been committed as the Court considered the question of valuation of the suit properties for determining its own jurisdiction without giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Further irregularity and illegality in exercise of the jurisdiction by the Court has been committed as the Court considered the question of valuation of the suit properties for determining its own jurisdiction without giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. In the impugned order the Court itself has observed that no specific issue relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court has been framed though the Court has got jurisdiction to frame such issue subsequently. Having noticed the same the Court did not frame any additional, issue ever at that stage nor gave any opportunity to the parties to lead evidence there on. The Court proceeded on the basis that the valuation as disclosed in Ext. 9 works out at Rs. 425/- per decimals and, therefore, the valuation of Schedules 'B' & 'C properties together will be more than the jurisdiction of the Court. The approach is entirely wrong. The nature of the ptoderty conveyed under Ext. 9 is not in evidence. There is no evidence or, record that the land covered under Ext. 9 is similar in ail respects with the suit lands. The valuation of same category (say homestead or agricultural land) of land in one locality or even a portion of the same plot of land may vary because of the peculiar situation, environment or the improvements made thereon by construction or otherwise. Thus to fix the valuation of the suit properties,on the basis of the valuation disclosed in Ext. 9 without any further evidence, was improper and unacceptable. It would have been permissible for the Court to frame an issue' on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction and to give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on that issue. It could return the plaint if ultimately the Court finds that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The course adopted by the learned Munsif violates the procedure prescribed in the Code and also the principle of natural justice. 5. In the result, the impugned order is liable to be set aside which I hereby do. The revision is thus allowed. The learned Munsif may proceed with the suit from the st3ge of examining the other witnesses of the plaintiffs and dispose of the suit afresh. No costs. Final Result : Allowed