ORDER Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the objection, as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, with regard to maintainability of the revision application. . 2. The Stamp Reporter has drawn my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Rathnavarmaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla, reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1299, to the effect that the question of payment of court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the State and the defendant has no grievance and has no right of revision against an order determining the payment of court fee. The judgment of the Apex Court is clear but has no application to the fact of the present case. It must be remembered that valuation for the purposes of court fee is one matter and the valuation for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is entirely a different matter. 3. A person may seek declaration and thus pay only fixed court fee but the declaration may be in respect of a property valued over two lakhs. In such a matter the valuation for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction would be rupees two lakhs and that would determine the court in which the suit lies. 4. In the present case the challenge is to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and not for the purposes of court fee. 5. In that view of the matter the decision of the Apex Court, as referred above, has no application. The civil revision application is thus maintainable.