B. N. MAITRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the Order No. 141 dated 8-9-1992 passed in T. S. No. 133 of 1982 by the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdha by which an application under Section 11 of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 has been disposed of. ( 2 ) ORIGINALLY the suit is filed simpliciter for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the suit property and from making disturbances with regard to the peaceful possession thereof. The same has been filed by filing an application for amendment under Or. 6, R. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which a dilation has been sought to be made in respect of averments contained in original paragraph 11 of the plaint and also for addition of new prayer being (bb) for recovery of the possession of B Schedule property which is a pieve and parcel of 66 decimal of land in P. S. Belghoria. After the said amendment was allowed, the defendant filed an application under Section 11 of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970. By the impugned order, the learned Munsif has been pleased to hold that the suit comes under the purview of Section 7 (v) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 and not under Section 7 (iv) (b) thereof. In this context, in the impugned order, the reliance was made in respect of a Division Bench decision of this High Court in the case of Bela Rani v. K. A. Rahaman reported in AIR. 1975 Cal 79 wherein it was held that in a suit for declaration of it and recovery of possession, the plaintiff will be required to pay ad valorem court-fees on the value of the subject matter of the suit, that is on the value of the disputed land under Section 7 (v) (a) of the Court-fees Act. It appears that after amendment, plaintiff has put in Rs. 1020. 00 on the basis of the option to be exercised by the plaintiff. ( 3 ) MRS. Sudipa Roy, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has relied on a decision of Patna High Court reported in AIR 1983 Pat 67 in order to contend that the valuation by the plaintiff in the plaint is final and conclusive and the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with such valuation. ( 3 ) MRS. Sudipa Roy, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has relied on a decision of Patna High Court reported in AIR 1983 Pat 67 in order to contend that the valuation by the plaintiff in the plaint is final and conclusive and the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with such valuation. In the said decision a further reference was made in respect of an earlier decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1958 SC 245 where a controversy arose in respect of a case following under Section 7 (iv) (b) or (c) of the aforesaid Act. The cited decision does not have any application of whatsoever nature as from the amended pleadings, it appears that the texture of the suit is for recovery of possession and it is to be governed accordingly under Section 7 (v) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970. ( 4 ) MRS. Roy further drew the attention of this High Court by placing of her reliance on a decision reported in 1992 (2) Calcutta High Court Notes 482 in the case of Naba Kumar Das v. Damodar Das where in the said judgment the ratio of law has been propounded in respect of a suit for declaration about the validity or otherwise of a Deed of Gift and the consequential reliefs attached thereto. It is significant to mention that in spite of reliance being made by Mrs. Roy S. 7 (iv) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 relates to suits for moveable property where the subject matter has no market value and in case of document relating to title thereof and to obtain a declaratory decree by way of consequential relief following therefrom and also a further relief by way of injunction as contemplated under Cl. (c ). It is admittedly on the plain reading of the amended plaint, a controversy relating to immovable property and as such Section 7 (iv) (b) or (c) of West Bengal Court-fees Act can have no application. The Patna case as referred to relate to Court-fees Act, but there also the controversy rotates round with regard to declaration of title and consequential relief being bereft of any controversy with regard to recovery of possession. But a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property stands on an altogether different footing. The Patna case as referred to relate to Court-fees Act, but there also the controversy rotates round with regard to declaration of title and consequential relief being bereft of any controversy with regard to recovery of possession. But a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property stands on an altogether different footing. It is not out of context also to make a reference about Section 16 of the West Bengal Court-fees Act and there in no uncertain terms it has been laid down that every question relating to the valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee under Chapter 3 shall be decided by the Court in which the plaint has been filed. Patna Case as referred to earlier is not an authority on West Bengal Court-fees Act and this Court cannot remain oblivious of the provision of Section 16 (1) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 and more significantly enough the expression has been used in the said Section as a prefix before the decision portion and the Court is cast with a mandatory obligation to decide the issue. By way of digression a reference may be made with regard to the provision of Order 7, Rule 11, Sub -rule (c) of the Civil Procedure Code from which it appears that if the relief claimed in based upon an insufficiently stamped paper and the Court may require the plaintiff to supply requisite stamp paper within a specified time fixed by the Court. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, in my opinion, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and in view of the disposal of the revisional application by this Court, the plaintiff is hereby directed to pay the ad valorem court-fees on an application being made by him about the valuation of the property within a period of 6 weeks from the date and the same is by way of extension so that the plaintiff can do the needful in the matter, if so advised. ( 6 ) IN view of the same, the instant revisional application is dismissed as there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the order complained of is sustained subject, to extension of time being granted by this Court. There shall however be no order as to costs revision dismissed.