Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.- Through this misc. appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(a) CPC, the appellant seeks to quash the order dated 22.08.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which the learned Judge has ordered to return the plaint to the appellant for being presented to the proper Court. 2. With the consent of the parties, I have heard arguments for final disposal of this appeal at the admission stage. 3. Though the Counsel for the parties have jointly prayed that order impugned in this petition be set-aside, yet having gone through the impugned order and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it appropriate and in the interest of justice of decide the appeal on merits. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned District Judge has proceeded to decide two preliminary objections regarding pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of the Court raised orally by the defendants. It is an admitted position that defendants have not filed written statement in the Court even till date. Curiously enough, in reply to the application for temporary injunction the defendants have raised objection regarding territorial jurisdiction only still the learned District Judge has decided the rejection relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and ordered to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the Court of original jurisdiction. The question of territorial jurisdiction was left opine to be decided by that Court. It appears that defendants neither moved any application for rejection of plaint nor for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 or Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 5. In the above factual back-ground, it is now necessary to examine the scheme as disclosed in the Civil Procedure Code relating to the settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Sub-rule (i) of Rule 1 of Order 14 states that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Sub-rule (2) defines material proposition. Sub-rule (3) clarifies that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other shall form the subject matter of a distinct issue. Sub-rule (4) enacts that issues are of two kinds, namely (a) issues of fact and (b) issues of law. Sub-rule (2) defines material proposition. Sub-rule (3) clarifies that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other shall form the subject matter of a distinct issue. Sub-rule (4) enacts that issues are of two kinds, namely (a) issues of fact and (b) issues of law. Sub-rule (4) requires the Court to frame issues after reading the plaint and written statement filed by the defendants. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 14 recognises a normal rule and enacts that all the issues arising in a suit should ordinarily be tried together and Judgment should be pronounced on those issues. Sub-rule (2) carves out an exception and speaks that if any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first, if that issue relates to (i) the jurisdiction of the Court or (ii) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. 6. The provisions of the Code referred to above make the position crystal clear that first of all the Court is required to frame issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Then comes Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 which confers discretionary power on the Court to decide issues relating to jurisdiction of the Court as a preliminary issue. However, in the instant case the learned District Judge has decided the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction even prior to filing of written statement and framing of issues. 7. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the learned District Judge has ordered to return the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the lowest Court of original jurisdiction on the ground of over valuation of suit without there being any basis whatsoever. .8. It may be stated that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. He valued the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 51,000/-for declaration and at Rs. 400/-for permanent injunction. The computation of Court fees under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 is governed by Chapter IV of the Act. Sections 24 and 26 of the Act deals with suits for declaration and injunction. Clause (e) of Section 24 and Clause (c) of Section 26 of the Act, which are relevant for the purpose, may be extracted below: .24. Sections 24 and 26 of the Act deals with suits for declaration and injunction. Clause (e) of Section 24 and Clause (c) of Section 26 of the Act, which are relevant for the purpose, may be extracted below: .24. Suits for declaration: .(a) x x x .(b) x x x .(c) x x x .(d) x x x .(e) in other cases, whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, subject to a minimum fee of twenty-five-rupees. .26. Suits for injunction - In a suit for injunction - .(a) x x x .(b) x x x .(c) in any other case, whether the subject matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees four hundred, whichever is higher. .9. It is thus clear that above referred two Clauses viz., Clause (e) of Section 24 and Clause (c) of Section 26 fully apply to the case at hand for the purpose of computation of Court fee. If the above provisions are taken into consideration, it become crystal clear that plaintiff has been given liberty to value his claim for the purposes of Court fee. Thus, the question that emerges for consideration would be as to whether disclosure of valuation is in the absolute discretion or option of the plaintiff or can it be objected to by the defendants and adjudicated upon by the Court? Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had an opportunity to deal with this question in Tara Devi vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, 1987 (4) SCC 69 and having considered the similar provisions, their Lordships held as under:- .“It is now well settled by the decisions of this Court in Sathappa Chhetiar vs. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar, AIR 1979 SC 989 that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under Section v(iv)(c) of the Court Fees act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the relief s sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same”. 10. Again in Sujir Keshav Nayak vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak, 1992 (2) SCC 731, their Lordships of the Apex Court held that “(1) Where the question of Court fee is linked with jurisdiction, a defendants has a right to raise objection and the Court should decide it as preliminary issues, (2) But in those cases where the suit is filed in Court of unlimited jurisdiction, the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff or payment of amount of Court fee on relief claimed in plaint or memorandum of appeal should be taken as correct; (3) This does not preclude the Court even in suits filed in Courts of unlimited jurisdiction from examining if the valuation, on averments in plaint, is arbitrary”. .11. Section 15, CPC provides that any suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The plaintiff may over or under value the suit for the purposes of avoiding a Court of a particular grade. If the suit is filed before the Court of unlimited jurisdiction the .valuation disclosed by the plaintiff /s may be accepted as correct. But at the same time, the Court is not precluded from examining the correctness of valuation and if the Court is satisfied that plaintiff has not been fair and has over valued the suit or relief arbitrarily, the plaint may be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 for being presented before the proper Court. 12. In the case at hand, the District Judge has passed the impugned order, thereby returning the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation before the proper Court as the plaintiff has not disclosed any basis for valuation of suit. A glance at the impugned order shows that the District Judge has not arrived at a conclusion that the valuation of the suit as assessed by the plaintiff is arbitrary. Liberty has been extended to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purposes of Court fees. A glance at the impugned order shows that the District Judge has not arrived at a conclusion that the valuation of the suit as assessed by the plaintiff is arbitrary. Liberty has been extended to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purposes of Court fees. The liberty so granted to the plaintiff appears to be for the reason that it is difficult to value the claim with any precision or definiteness and, therefore, the plaintiff is not required to disclose any basis for valuation of his suit. Having contronted with the above legal situation, Counsel for the defendants agreed to set-aside the order impugned in this appeal. 13. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. 14. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Judge is set-aside and the District Judge is directed to first frame issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and may proceed to decide the issue of jurisdiction keeping in view the observations made herein above. The parties are directed to remain present before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 05.09.2005