Judgment S.K. Mookherjee, J. 1. WE directed both these revisional applications to be heard together as the point involved in the same, namely, when the question pecuniary jurisdiction is raised by filing an objection under section 15 of Code of Civil Procedure how should the Court decide the propriety or valuation made in the plaint by the plaintiff. 2. THE facts in both the cases in their relevant parts are almost identical. These suits were filed for eviction, inter alia, on the grounds of violation under section 108(m), (o) and (p) of the Transfer of Property Act. THE plaint included a prayer for relief by way of damages and the valuation of the 1ges caused by the defendants had been stated as Rs. 28,000/- and Rs. 27,000/- respectively. THE averments also in the two plaints were more less identical. In both the plaints, details about the composition of the of Rs. 28,000/- and Rs. 27,000/- respectively are absent and on the of such absence it has been urged on behalf of the defendants in both suits that the suits were over-valued and the plaints were required to be led to courts of lesser jurisdiction. In both the cases, the impugned orders went against the defendants giving rise to the two revisional applications before us. We have heard Mr. Mukherjee in support of the first application and Mr. Lahiri in support of the second application. We have heard Mr. Sengupta also on behalf of the Caveator in the first application. 3. IT appears from the impugned orders that the concerned courts proceeded on the basis that at that stage it was not possible for the court to disbelieve the contention of the plaintiff and the question of quantum of mesne profits and damages could not be disposed of at that stage in a summary fashion without proceeding with trial of the suit and except at the staff of the conclusion of the trial. To hold otherwise, according to the impugned orders, would be to pre-judge the issues. 4. A number of decisions have been cited at the Bar in support of the rival contentions. Since such questions had already been decided by the Supreme Court, we propose to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court and refer to the said decisions in justification of the conclusions which we propose to reach. 4. A number of decisions have been cited at the Bar in support of the rival contentions. Since such questions had already been decided by the Supreme Court, we propose to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court and refer to the said decisions in justification of the conclusions which we propose to reach. In the case of Nandita Bose v. Ratanlal Nahata reported in AIR 1987 SC 1947 and Tara Debi v. Shri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, their Shebait Chandreswar Prasad and Maheswar Prasad and another, reported in the same volume at page 2085 the ratio as propounded by the Supreme Court appears to be that the liberty to value the suit and to determine the form on the basis of such valuation lies with the plaintiff normally, unless the valuation put by the plaintiff can be demonstratively shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable. The term "demonstrate" means "to make manifest" ; "to give proof of ' ; "to prove with certainty" ; "to exhibit by practical means". To express succinctly, the valuation has to be established patently to be arbitrary and unreasonable. In the instant cases, no material appears to have been placed before the courts below to satisfy the above test laid down by the Supreme Court and we agree with the view expressed by the court below that to hold at this stage that the valuation was arbitrary or unjust would be to pre-judge the question. It is partinent to consider in this connection that it has also been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manirampore Cultural Association v. Manirampore Junior High School and others reported in 92 CWN 502 that the court will consider such questions and take into consideration the fact that the jurisdiction of a higher forum is not ousted even if on the conclusion of the trial the suits are found to have not been properly valued. 5. FOR the foregoing reasons we are not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the two revisional applications. The revisional applications are, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 6. 5. FOR the foregoing reasons we are not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the two revisional applications. The revisional applications are, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 6. WE would, however, like to record that the existence of such an order or affirmation thereof by us, would not in any way prevent the court from deciding the question of damages according to law and on merit on the basis of materials available in course of the trial. If urgent certified copies are applied for by any of the parties, the department is directed to deliver the same within two weeks from the date of deposit of the requisite stamps and folios. A. M. Sinha, J., I agree. Application rejected.